Population Density Drives Trade Imbalances Again in 2016

June 26, 2017

I’ve finished my analysis of trade in manufactured goods for 2016 and, as expected once again, the news isn’t good.  The overall deficit in manufactured goods soared to yet another new record in 2016 of $680 billion, beating the previous record set one year earlier by $32 billion.  A thorough, country-by-country analysis of the data reveals one overriding factor that’s driving this deficit- population density.  Since the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, the U.S. has systematically lowered barriers to its market for all countries, as required by that treaty and by the World Trade Organization that it spawned.  But that policy has yielded vastly different results.  While the U.S. enjoyed a surplus in manufactured goods of $34 billion with the half of nations with population densities below the world median, it was clobbered with a deficit of $704 billion with the other half of nations – those with population densities above the median.  Same number of nations.  Starkly different results.

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 165 nations and separated out those product codes that represent manufactured products.  That’s no easy task.  There are hundreds of product codes.  While the Bureau of Economic Analysis makes it easy to track what’s happening with “goods” in general, that includes such things as oil, gas and agricultural products – goods that aren’t manufactured.  You’d think that they’d be interested in tracking manufactured products, given the level of political rancor on that subject, but they don’t.  The only way to arrive at that data is to sift it out, product code by product code.  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 165 nations evenly into two groups:  those 83 nations with a population density greater than the median (which, in 2016, was 191 people per square mile, up from 184 in 2015) and those 82 nations with a population density below the median.  I then totaled our balance of trade for each group.

As you can see, in 2016, 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 $34 billion.  This is down from $74 billion in 2015, is the third consecutive decline, and has fallen by almost 80% from the record high of $153 billion in 2011.  Why?  As the manufacturing sector of our economy is steadily eroded by huge trade deficits, we simply have fewer products to offer for sale to other nations.  Exports fell by $44 billion in 2016.  (Remember Obama’s pledge to double exports?  What a laugh.)

Conversely, our balance of trade in manufactured goods with the more densely populated half of nations was a huge deficit of $704 billion, down slightly from the record level of $722 billion in 2015.

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 $34 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 $704 billion deficit!  Population density is the determining factor.  It’s not low wages.  The average purchasing power parity (or “PPP,” a factor roughly analogous to wages) of the densely populated half of nations – those with whom we have the huge deficit – is almost $20,000.  The average PPP of the less densely populated nations with whom we enjoy a trade surplus was about $18,000.  Wealthy nations were just as likely to appear among the deficit nations as among the surplus nations.

Nor is the other popular scapegoat – “currency manipulation” – a factor.  Nearly every currency in the world weakened against the dollar in 2016.  (Only 19 nations experienced an increase in the value of their currency.)  Among the 19 nations whose currencies rose, we had a deficit in manufactured goods with 8, and a surplus with 11.  On average, the deficits worsened by 115%, driven by a huge increase with Madagascar.  Remove that anomaly and the deficits actually declined by an average of 8.4% – in line with the currency theory.  Among the 11 nations with whom we had a surplus, the surpluses improved on average by 14% – again, in line with the currency theory.

However, among the 85 nations who experienced a decline in their currency vs the dollar, we had deficits with 27 of them.  On average, those deficits fell by 13.4% – exactly the opposite of what the currency theory would predict.  Among the remaining nations with whom we had a surplus, the surplus rose by an average of 33% – again, exactly the opposite of what currency theory predicts.

Therefore, we can conclude that our trade deficit in manufactured goods behaved exactly the opposite of what the “currency theory” would predict 80% of the time.  Why?  As noted earlier, most currencies fell vs the dollar last year.  This happened because the U.S. economy was in better shape than the rest of the world, at least in the minds of investors.  That’s what determines currency valuations.  Not manipulation.  Currency valuation has almost nothing to do with trade imbalances.  It affects the profitability of companies operating in different countries, but rarely makes any difference in the balance of trade.

This is absolute proof positive that trade imbalances in manufactured goods are driven by population density and almost nothing else.  Any trade policies that don’t take this factor into account are doomed to failure as evidenced by the destruction of the manufacturing sector of America’s economy.  The only remedy that offers any hope of turning this situation around is tariffs (or a “border tax,” as the Trump administration likes to call it).  Preferably, such tariffs would target only high population density nations like Japan, Germany, China, South Korea and a host of others.  Why apply tariffs to low density countries with whom we enjoy surpluses and anger them unnecessarily?

Trump was elected due in large part to his promises to tear up NAFTA and withdraw from the World Trade Organization and begin imposing a “border tax.”  It’s time to follow through on those promises while we still have a shred of a manufacturing sector left to build upon.

 


Trump was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement

June 3, 2017

Let me begin by making clear that I am an environmentalist.  It was my concern for the environment – especially my little piece of the environment that I enjoy in the north woods – that was the genesis of my discovery of the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, which I presented and explained in Five Short Blasts.  It’s a clear-eyed look at just where unending population growth will take us.  Few have devoted as much of their time to trying to save the planet.

Let me also make clear that I’m neither a GOP conservative nor a Democrat.  As I stated in Five Short Blasts, the platforms of both parties – both of which embrace and promote population growth – produce nothing more than weaving left and right along a path to ruin.  So this post isn’t politically motivated.

“Climate change,” the now-politically correct term for global warming, is real.  The link to human activity is undeniable.  I’ve watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”  and agree with its premise.  Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane are building up in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.  The science is clear.  Kudos to the scientists.

But shame on environmentalists.  The environmental movement has been a colossal failure.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t now find ourselves in the fix that we’re in.  We wouldn’t be in the midst of a mass extinction.  The dire consequences of global warming are now inevitable.  Environmentalists admit as much.  And who is to blame for all of this?  There’s plenty of blame to go around but it could be argued that no one is more to blame than the leaders of the environmental movement themselves.  There may be a special place in hell for these people for what they’ve done.

Why do I say such a thing?  A little history is in order.  Going back decades, to the ’80s, if my memory serves me correctly, the environmental movement was in trouble.  The Vietnam war was over and young, impatient activists seized upon the environment as a new cause.  Their approach was radical and intolerant.  Industry, the civilian half of the “military industrial complex” that was the object of so much scorn by young radicals during the Vietnam era, was demonized as the enemy of humanity by the environmental movement.  The environmental movement was anti-industry, anti-development anti-everything to the point where they were perceived as being anti-humanity.

At the same time, as a result of new trade policies ushered in by GATT (the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, enacted in 1947), the de-industrialization of America was underway.  Factories were closing.  People were losing their jobs.  And the country was being flooded with imports from Japan.  Eager to find a scapegoat, industry successfully blamed the environmental movement for making it impossible to continue manufacturing in America.  People began to despise these young, impatient, intolerant and uncompromising environmentalist radicals.

Industry had its own image problems.  Both sides saw an opportunity and began to collaborate.   The environmental movement softened its approach to development and, in return for the environmentalists’ endorsement of new development projects, industry began to embrace some of their more reasonable demands and causes.  The environmental movement made a deal with the devil and the concept of “sustainable development” was born.

Soon after, the company I worked for served up an example.  They announced plans to build a new plant on a pristine “green field” site – a piece of undeveloped property they owned.  At the same time, they also announced that another such piece of property was being set aside as a sort of wildlife refuge, never to be developed.  This, they proudly proclaimed, was a prime example of “sustainable development.”  “How the hell is that sustainable?” I wondered.  Half of the property in question was now gone.  It didn’t take a genius to figure out where that will ultimately lead if such “development” is “sustained.”

The term is an oxymoron and there is no such thing as “sustainable development.”  It makes me bristle every time I hear it.  By it’s very definition, “development” means putting natural resources to work to enhance the lives of human-kind.  There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you recognize that, in a finite world, the process has to stop at some point.  It can’t be sustained forever. A finite resource can only sustain a certain number of people at a high standard of living.  Even a child should be able to understand this.  Yet, that is exactly what corporate leaders and their environmentalist lackeys would have you believe – that we can continue growing our population and continue to consume more and more, and thus grow their profits – “sustainably.” Forever.

Of course, the leaders of the environmental movement responsible for this mess won’t find themselves alone.  If there’s a hotter place in hell, it’s occupied by economists – those people who, in the wake of their Malthusian black eye, proclaimed that there is no limit to man’s ability to overcome all obstacles to growth, and vowed never again to even consider that population growth could present challenges.  It is yet another claim unable to stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny, but is the foundation upon which the concept of “sustainable development” is built. Incredibly, the environmental movement has bought into this.

With all of this said, I decided to do my own objective evaluation of the Paris Climate Agreement to decide for myself the wisdom of Trump’s move.  I started with Wikipedia’s take on the agreement, but then decided to go right to the United Nations’ web site that documents the whole thing.  I wanted to read the agreement for myself.  But, try as I might, I’ll be darned if I can find it.  There’s lots of explanation from the UN about the agreement, but I couldn’t find the agreement itself.  That kind of thing always makes me a little suspicious.

Anyway, here’s some key aspects of the agreement:

  • Certain few developed countries – most notably the U.S. – are targeted to generate all of the reduction in greenhouse gases.  Many undeveloped nations are actually allowed to increase their emissions in order to allow them to develop.  China, the world’s worst polluter, committed to only 25% of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, in per capita terms, that the U.S. committed to achieving.
  • Aid, beginning at a minimum of $100 billion per year above and beyond aid that nations are already receiving, must be provided by developed nations to help undeveloped nations develop faster and to help them deal with the effects of climate change.
  • Each nation sets its own goals, consistent with the overall goal to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or less, but then must report annually on their progress toward meeting their goals.

Already, I was beginning to have my doubts.  Forcing dramatic emissions cuts on the U.S. while allowing other nations to increase their emissions seems to preclude the U.S. from ever re-balancing trade and rebuilding the manufacturing sector of the economy, even if it meant producing products in plants that operated under strict environmental regulations as opposed to the filthy factories spewing smog in China.  This feels like some sort of “eco-trade barrier.”

Secondly, the requirement that wealthy nations boost their aid to developing nations by a minimum of another $100 billion per year to help them develop seems like a money grab.  We all know where the vast majority of funding would come from – the U.S. – just as the U.S. funds a disproportionate share of the U.N., the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, NATO, and virtually every other multi-national organization.

Finally, as I scanned through the many web pages that the UN serves up, I found the real goal of the agreement.  In the UN’s own words, here it is:

  • The ultimate objective of the Convention is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.” It states that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”

And there it is!  “… enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”  This agreement isn’t about saving the planet or the environment.  It’s about keeping environmental degradation just tolerable enough that we can continue to pack the planet with more corporate customers.

If climate change is the result of human activity, then isn’t it logical that any effort to combat it should begin with a focus on limiting the number of humans or their activity?  What is gained if we all cut our greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 50% but then double the population?  Absolutely nothing!

The U.S. has already made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn’t even close to being enough.  To achieve the cuts that President Obama committed to in the Kyoto protocol – cuts of 80% or more – the plan relies heavily on “carbon capture.”  That is, CO2 would be extracted from exhaust stacks and stored in tanks or underground.  Essentially, it’s a process of creating a CO2 “landfill” which, if we all cross our fingers and toes and hope real hard, maybe it’ll never leak and create such a catastrophic jump in atmospheric CO2 levels that the planet is almost instantly cooked!

Any approach to the climate change problem that doesn’t begin with a plan to stabilize and gradually reduce the human population to a level where we can all enjoy a high standard of living without threatening the planet is a hoax.  Climate change is real, but this Paris agreement is just that – a hoax.  It has little to nothing to do with fighting climate change.  Instead, it’s globalization and “sustainable development” on steroids.  There is an old saying that goes something like this:  “If you can’t bewilder them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit.”  That’s exactly what “sustainable development” does.

Critics have mocked President Trump, saying that he is incapable of grasping the complexities of the Paris agreement.  It could be argued that perhaps it was President Obama who didn’t understand that the agreement he proclaimed to be such an accomplishment actually does nothing for the climate and simply suckered the U.S. into yet another self-destructive deal.  And it’s time for all people who are concerned about climate change and the environment to wake up to the fact that the environmental movement has been hijacked by those who profit from plundering the planet and that they, too, are being suckered by the concept of “sustainable development.”

I’m not terribly concerned.  I believe that if the world doesn’t wake up to the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, then the unemployment, poverty and rising death rate that it fosters are going to do more to put a lid on greenhouse gas emissions than the Paris agreement could have ever hoped to achieve.

In the meantime, other world leaders have rushed to the defense of the Paris agreement.  No surprise.  They can kiss goodbye the $100 billion (per year!) they were counting on.  Plus, championing the Paris agreement is all upside for politicians with no downside.  Everyone loves them for their concern for the planet and they can never be held accountable, since it’s impossible to gauge success under the agreement.  It’s like a campaign promise that never has to be kept because no one can tell whether or not you’ve delivered.

Americans have been fleeced far too much in the name of globalization.  Clearly, Trump wasn’t baffled by this BS.  I applaud him for having the guts to walk away from this deal and for being willing to take the political heat for doing so.

 

 


Davos: A Monday Morning Staff Meeting …

January 17, 2017

…at a company that went bankrupt on Friday.  Other analogies come to mind:  an emergency meeting of the damage-control committee on the Titanic.  A meeting of parasites as the sick animal host walks away following a dose of antibiotics.

The participants at Davos stare across the table at each other, carrying out their agenda in robot-like fashion, but knowing full well the reality of the situation they now face.  They’re irrelevant – vestiges of a failed experiment staggering along in a zombie-like state.

As reported in this Reuters article, their agenda has taken on a new theme.  They’re suddenly, but disingenuously, interested in the fate of American workers who’ve been left behind by their globalization regime:

The titles of the discussion panels at the WEF, which runs from Jan. 17-20, evoke the unsettling new landscape. Among them are “Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis”, “Politics of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?”, “Tolerance at the Tipping Point?” and “The Post-EU Era”.

This morning, the meeting opened with an address by Chinese president Xi Jinping, in which he declared that “no one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.”  It’s ironic that the biggest winner in today’s trade war (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what we’ve been in for decades) would lecture the biggest loser – the U.S.  It’s no different than if Japan’s Emperor Hirohito had lectured America about standing up for itself in the wake of Pearl Harbor.

He went on to denounce “protectionism,” conveniently ignoring the vast network of protectionist measures employed by his own country.  Like all participants at the Davos forum, Xi likes to forget that the enforced flow of jobs from America to China and other nations unable to grapple with their bloated labor forces, denying America the ability to engage in trade deals that are mutually beneficial – is a rigged system that it has dubbed as “free trade.”  And it decries the freedom to operate our economy as we see fit as “protectionism.”

The winners in the World Trade Organization-enforced regime, China being the biggest winner, frequently declare that trade deficits don’t matter.  If that’s true, then they shouldn’t mind taking their turn at it.  Your turn, China.  It’s time for you to relinquish your trade surplus with the U.S. and suffer a deficit for a while.  Then let’s see how you feel.

 


How the Global Elite Sewed the Seeds of Trump’s Victory and Their Own Demise

November 23, 2016

With each passing day since the election I am more amazed than the day before at what I see happening as the Trump administration begins to take shape and at the reaction from world leaders, the business world and political pundits.  I have a lot of thoughts I want to share about what this all means but, before getting into all that, I thought I’d share another take on just what happened with this election – a “take” that I haven’t heard from anyone else yet.

As global corporations began the process of implementing the New World Order that had its genesis in the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 – especially as the process accelerated first with the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, followed closely by the admission of China to the World Trade Organization, both events occurring during the Clinton administration – the painful process of passing out pink slips to American manufacturing workers got underway in earnest.

With nothing more than a small severance check and, perhaps, some “job re-training” (to do exactly what was never clear), millions of people were suddenly faced with the question, “now what do I do?”  They began with the obvious – look for another job.  When that didn’t work, more and more people tried their hands at starting their own businesses. It stimulated an interest in entrepreneurism like we hadn’t seen before.  People sought out the advice of successful entrepreneurs and began to revere the most successful among them.

The appetite for entrepreneurial advice didn’t escape television executives.  Never one to miss an opportunity, enter Donald Trump and his reality show “The Apprentice,”  which first aired in January of 2004 and has run continuously since then in various formats.  Viewers were awed by his business instincts, his ability to see through phoniness and identify those with real ambition, and his ability to win at business.  For people who had been exposed to the lies and BS that were standard fare used by corporations to justify the sacrifice of their jobs on the altar of globalism, this was refreshing.  This was someone they could admire.

What the global elite didn’t anticipate was that they were making a hero of a fabulously successful entrepreneur who didn’t need their money, one with political ambitions and one who, for whatever reason, seemed to have an affinity for the working class.  I’m reminded of the natural world where imbalances have a way of correcting themselves.  If a population of some species grows out-of-control, other forces have a way of reining it in.  In the same way, when the global elite concocted a system that helped some at the expense of others, they unwittingly sewed the seeds of that system’s own demise.

 


“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.

 

 


Euro Zone Unemployment Hits New Record

June 1, 2013

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-eurozone-economy-idUSBRE94U0DJ20130531

As reported in the above-linked Reuters article, unemployment in the Euro zone hit a new record in April – 12.2%.  And that rate only begins to tell the story:

Almost two-thirds of young Greeks are unable to find work … in Italy, the unemployment rate hit its highest level in at least 36 years, with 40 percent of young people out of work

This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the relationship between a high population density (the euro zone is nearly as densely populated as China) and low per capita consumption.  And per capita consumption and unemployment are inextricably linked. 

The reasons for Europe’s unemployment crisis are clear:

  • As anyone who has ever visited Europe knows, out of necessity, the vast majority of its people live in small apartments and consume very little, yet they are as productive as workers in the U.S.  High productivity and low consumption spell trouble for employment, and makes Europe utterly dependent on manufacturing for export to gainfully employ its vast labor force.
  • Following its ascension to the World Trade Organization over a decade ago, China has steadily “muscled in” on Europe’s export business.
  • For decades, Europe has relied heavily on deficit spending on social programs to prop up consumption and maintain an illusion of prosperity.  Their debt level has reached an unsustainable level,  and austerity programs have kicked government employees to the unemployment lines and falling incomes have bitten into Europe’s already-meager rate of personal consumption.

There is no escape from this trap that has been set by economists’ reliance on population growth to stoke macroeconomic growth.  Beyond the euro zone, unemployment around the globe will worsen as the world’s population continues to grow.  More and more nations turn to exports to bolster their economy while fewer and fewer net consumers remain.  How long will it be before this crisis begins to rip at the fabric of civilization?  It sounds like Europe may be approaching that point.


U.S. Trade with The E.U.

May 13, 2013

In his State of the Union address in February, President Obama called for a new free trade deal between the U.S. and the European Union, or EU.  (See this article for more information:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/business/global/trade-deal-between-us-europe-may-pick-up-steam.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.)

It’d be a huge deal, no doubt.  But would it be a good deal for the U.S.?  Since the signing of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 and since the inception in 1995 of its offspring, the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has been steadily moving toward freer trade with the rest of the world, including the 27 member states of the Euroean Union.  It only makes sense to examine the results of free trade with the EU thus far before deciding whether or not a further move toward freer trade would be a good deal for the U.S.

But first, a few facts about the EU are in order.  The European Union was established in 1993 and includes 27 members:  Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  In other words, most of Europe, with a couple of noteworthy exceptions:  Norway and Switzerland. 

If the EU were a nation, it would be the 7th largest in the world in terms of suface area with over 1.6 million square miles and would be the 3rd most populous, with just over a half billion people, exceeded only by China and India. 

So how have we fared in trade with the EU, particularly in the all-important, job-creating category of manufactured goods?  Here’s a chart of our balance of trade with the EU since 2001:  EU.  As you can see, the U.S. suffers a large trade deficit with the EU.  Though it began to shrink beginning in 2006 – a process helped along no doubt by the overall decline in global trade that accompanied the onset of the “Great Recession” in late 2007, it began to deteriorate rapidly again in 2010.  In only three years since 2009, our trade deficit with the EU in manufactured goods has more than doubled. 

Now, let’s consider the factors involved:

Population Density:

With 503 million people, the population density of the EU, at 309 people per square mile, is only slightly less than that of China (359 per square mile).  It is approximately 3.6 times as densely populated as the U.S. (85 per square mile).  In per capita terms, our trade deficit with the EU in manufactured goods is $223, remarkably similar to our per capita trade deficit with China ($210).  Once again, we see that population density is a consistent predictor of whether we will have a surplus or deficit with any particular country and what the size of that imbalance might be expected to be. 

Currency Exchange Rate:

Economists are fond of blaming trade deficits on exchange rates that are kept artificially low by “currency manipulation,” accomplished by tactics such as currency printing by central banks.  The theory is that a currency that is kept artificially low makes that nation’s exports cheaper for American consumers while making American exports more expensive for that nation’s consumers. 

In 2012, the Euro weakened against the U.S. dollar by 14.3%.  And, in fact, as economists would predict, our trade imbalance with the EU worsened by 14%.  But that’s just one year in which the Euro took an uncharacteristic dip.  Since 2001, the Euro has risen by 31% against the dollar.  But, instead of improving, our trade imbalance with the EU worsened by 104%. 

Wealth:

Economists also blame trade deficits on low wages in other nations.  We have no data on average or median wages, but what’s known as purchasing power parity (“PPP”) – roughly a nation’s GDP (gross domestic product) per capita – is pretty analogous.  By that measure, the EU has a PPP of $34,500 and, if it were a nation, would rank in the top 20% of the world’s 229 nations.  The EU is not poor and wages are not low.  Since 2001, of the 26 EU member nations, 14 have experienced a PPP that has grown faster than the U.S.; that is, they have grown wealthier vs. the U.S.  In spite of that, our trade imbalance has actually worsened with 10 of these 14 nations. 

That leaves twelve EU nations whose wealth deterioriated vs. the U.S.  since 2001.  Of these 12 nations, our trade imbalance worsened with 9 of them. 

So, of these 26 member nations, our trade imbalance responded as economists would predict (based on the “low wage” theory) in 13 cases – exactly half.  In other words, there’s no relationship between low wages (or wealth) and trade imbalance whatsoever.   Falling wealth and wages are no more likely to worsen our trade imbalance than they are to improve it. 

Exports to the EU:

Well, OK, maybe our trade imbalance with the EU has worsened because we’ve imported more from the EU.  Maybe a new trade deal can make that up by boosting our exports to them, right?  Not likely.  In the past year, exports of manufactured goods to the EU actually declined by 1%.  This is in spite of President Obama’s goal of doubling exports within five years.  If the EU had any capacity for absorbing more American exports, shouldn’t we have seen some evidence of that in 2012 in light of the president’s push? 

Given the results of steadily liberalizing trade with the EU – results that were quite predictable given the relationship between population density and trade imbalances – further liberalization of trade with the EU makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  It makes no more sense than liberalizing trade with China.  The result if the same.  It only makes sense to those vested in 19th century trade policy, economists too afraid of pondering the ramifications of population growth out of fear of being exposed as frauds.