• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two deficits that just don't matter

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,054
Location
Yokohama, Japan
This article is an oldie but a goodie. It explains why trade deficits and government budget deficits aren't very good indicators of the health of an economy.

The title of the article, which I used as-is for the thread, is bit of an exaggeration. It's not that these deficits don't matter at all, just that the amount of attention focused on them is more than they deserve, and that other indicators are more important for indicating the true health of an economy.
 
I agree with it. If you want to measure something complex, you need to use as many measures as possible. One measure not mentioned that is important is the value of the currency compared with its major trading partners. If that is going up then that is like giving everyone a wage rise and more.
 
I don't know that the value of the currency per se is much of an indication either. In one sense, it's really sort of arbitrary. What does it mean that currently one US dollar is equal to 93 yen? Can you tell from that which economy is healthier? The yen is stronger than it has usually been in the past, but this has caused a bit of a crisis in the export sector of Japan's economy. What does it mean that the government of the US wants China to raise the exchange rate of its currency to the dollar, and the government of China doesn't want to do that? There are two sides to the coin: A higher exchange rate means that goods are cheaper assuming free trade, while a lower exchange rate helps make domestic industries more competitive. This means more jobs and growth in the productive sector. I think that economies will adjust to different exchange rates over time if a free market is allowed to set the exchange rate.
 
I don't know that the value of the currency per se is much of an indication either.

He didn't suggest that is was the value per se, but the change in the value.

A rising currency is generally a sign of a healthy economy (because it means people want a piece of it), irrespective of whether we're talking about euros, latinos, or gringos.

Of course, it's only one indicator.


The yen is stronger than it has usually been in the past, but this has caused a bit of a crisis in the export sector of Japan's economy.

Right, because it means people want yen more badly than they want dollars, and because people with yen (i.e. the Japanese) can and will bid higher for goods on the foreign market than people with dollars.

Which are both signs that the Japanese economy is doing well.


What does it mean that the government of the US wants China to raise the exchange rate of its currency to the dollar, and the government of China doesn't want to do that?

Don't confuse "what the government wants" with "what the markets say" or even "what the markets want."

The Chinese governments wants a strong export market and wants to maintain control of industry internally. You can't typically do both (in a developed economy) because if you've got good industry and a strong export market, foreign currency wants in.

So the Chinese have established some definitely unfree currency policies to keep foreign money out of China, most notably via exchange rate controls. The market doesn't like that, but the Chinese government is notoriously insensitive to what the market wants.
 
I don't know that the value of the currency per se is much of an indication either. In one sense, it's really sort of arbitrary. What does it mean that currently one US dollar is equal to 93 yen? Can you tell from that which economy is healthier? The yen is stronger than it has usually been in the past, but this has caused a bit of a crisis in the export sector of Japan's economy. What does it mean that the government of the US wants China to raise the exchange rate of its currency to the dollar, and the government of China doesn't want to do that? There are two sides to the coin: A higher exchange rate means that goods are cheaper assuming free trade, while a lower exchange rate helps make domestic industries more competitive. This means more jobs and growth in the productive sector. I think that economies will adjust to different exchange rates over time if a free market is allowed to set the exchange rate.

You are babbling about a "free market" in foreign exchange, where units are denominated in fiat currencies for which the supply is practically unlimited. Tell me, how is it a free market when the supply of currency is manipulated, and low interest rates are subsidized by a virtual printing press? Only in a delusional pipe dream is that a free market.

Government deficits typically reflect wasteful or corrupt government spending, and government debt becomes harmful to the extent that servicing it becomes burdensome.
 
Last edited:
A rising currency is generally a sign of a healthy economy [ . . . ]
Not particularly. Currencies can rise in nominal terms because their economies have lower inflation than others do. The yen's rise in yen-per-dollar is largely an offset to relative deflation. If the yen had not climbed against dollars, then in real terms it would be depreciating.

Hence to call a rising yen a sign of a healthy economy would be broadly equivalent to calling the last decade of deflation in Japan the same thing.
 
You are babbling about a "free market" in foreign exchange [ . . . ]
Exchange rates aren't usually described as free markets, but the poster probably means a floating exchange rate, which is a prouduct of an open capital account. China is almost definitely not going to open its capital account for decades to come. It may, however, re-fix the CNY to a higher nominal exchange rate.

The only currencies where the control of the monetary base is relinquished are those that are domestically backed by somebody else's currency (such as Hong Kong, and recently Zimbabwe.) Gold standards apparently stand no chance of coming back.
 
Which are both signs that the Japanese economy is doing well.

Which are completely overshadowed by:

A 15 year negative GDP growth rate.
A stock market that has yet to return to the glory days of 1985.
Persistent deflation
A debt level second only to Zimbabwe.
Their unemployment rate is low (by our standards, and if their numbers are even comparable), but if you triple your national debt in just 20 years, you ought to have something to show for it.

Other than all that, they're doing well.
 
Last edited:
This article is an oldie but a goodie. It explains why trade deficits and government budget deficits aren't very good indicators of the health of an economy.

The title of the article, which I used as-is for the thread, is bit of an exaggeration. It's not that these deficits don't matter at all, just that the amount of attention focused on them is more than they deserve, and that other indicators are more important for indicating the true health of an economy.

The misery of the PIGS.
 
Not particularly. Currencies can rise in nominal terms because their economies have lower inflation than others do. The yen's rise in yen-per-dollar is largely an offset to relative deflation. If the yen had not climbed against dollars, then in real terms it would be depreciating.

Hence to call a rising yen a sign of a healthy economy would be broadly equivalent to calling the last decade of deflation in Japan the same thing.
I agree.

Exchange rates aren't usually described as free markets, but the poster probably means a floating exchange rate, which is a prouduct of an open capital account.

Yes. This is what I meant.
 
I think that Greece's problem has something to do with the fact that it doesn't control its own currency, and is not a problem that countries like the US or Japan would encounter. It's the down side of the Euro.

Greece's problem is that it's running deficits that are almost 13% of its GDP (America's, which are insanely high, are around 10% GDP). It's probably a good thing Greece can't try to inflate its way out of this mess.
 
Greece's problem is that it's running deficits that are almost 13% of its GDP (America's, which are insanely high, are around 10% GDP). It's probably a good thing Greece can't try to inflate its way out of this mess.

We'll see about that. Back in the 1920s all the countries were on a gold standard so that they couldn't "inflate their way out" of any messes.

Ben Bernanke has written about this. See this or this.

(From the latter link)
Since the early 1980s, however, a new body of research on the Depression has emerged which focuses on the operation of the international gold standard during the interwar period (Choudhri and Kochin 1980; Eichengreen 1984; Eichengreen and Sachs 1985; Hamilton 1988; Temin 1989; Bernanke and James 1991; Eichengreen 1992). Methodologically, as a natural consequence of their concern with international factors, authors working in this area brought a strong comparative perspective into research on the Depression; as I suggested in the introduction, I consider this development to be a major contribution, with implications that extend beyond the question of the role of the gold standard. Substantively—in marked contrast to the inconclusive state of affairs that prevailed in the late 1970s—the new gold-standard research allows us to assert with considerable confidence that monetary factors played an important causal role, both in the worldwide decline in prices and output and in their eventual recovery. Two well-documented observations support this conclusion.

First, exhaustive analysis of the operation of the interwar gold standard has shown that much of the worldwide monetary contraction of the early 1930s was not a passive response to declining output, but instead the largely unintended result of an interaction of poorly designed institutions, shortsighted policy-making, and unfavorable political and economic preconditions. Hence the correlation of money and price declines with output declines that was observed in almost every country is most reasonably interpreted as reflecting primarily the influence of money on the real economy, rather than vice versa.

Second, for reasons that were largely historical, political, and philosophical rather than purely economic, some governments responded to the crises of the early 1930s by quickly abandoning the gold standard, while others chose to remain on gold despite adverse conditions. Countries that left gold were able to reflate their money supplies and price levels, and did so after some delay; countries remaining on gold were forced into further deflation. To an overwhelming degree, the evidence shows that countries that left the gold standard recovered from the Depression more quickly than countries that remained on gold. Indeed, no country exhibited significant economic recovery while remaining on the gold standard. The strong dependence of the rate of recovery on the choice of exchange-rate regime is further, powerful evidence for the importance of monetary factors.
 
We'll see about that. Back in the 1920s all the countries were on a gold standard so that they couldn't "inflate their way out" of any messes.

Ben Bernanke has written about this. See this or this.

(From the latter link)

There's a difference between the inflation that naturally occurs from a robustly growing economy and the inflation that occurs when a country is in desperate financial straits and decides to print its way out of it. Greece would go the way of those countries that start slapping zeroes on their currency. Because Greece is stuck with the EURO, they get a cheap loan and maybe will start tackling some of the systemic problems they face.
 
As I said above you got to look at several figures. Greece's government spent big, using borrowed money. This would not matter too much if the country's economy was growing at a rapid rate. However they are not in boom conditions hence they are having serious problems getting more debt at reasonable market interest rates.

Yes I also agree if you are using changes in the value of the currency then you could also look at inflation. That would give you only additional details. If your currency is going down in value then your economy has got issues. It may have high inflation, but it still means that the economy is in trouble. Just a slightly different type of trouble from your economy not being so productive. Your currency could be going up because everyone else has high inflation. Then everyone else is in trouble.
 
Japan is an unusual case because it has negative inflation. Again that is a sign of trouble and you need to look at other figures to work out why.

No one figure will give you a solid picture. Any one can be manipulated by the government or others. Looking at inflation and interest rates (ie real interest rates) is another good measure. If that is high then that is an indication of problems in the economy. It could be that the government just wants to prop up the currency, or stop or prevent high inflation.
 
There's a difference between the inflation that naturally occurs from a robustly growing economy and the inflation that occurs when a country is in desperate financial straits and decides to print its way out of it. Greece would go the way of those countries that start slapping zeroes on their currency. Because Greece is stuck with the EURO, they get a cheap loan and maybe will start tackling some of the systemic problems they face.

Inflation does not occur from a "robustly growing economy", deflation does! Monetary inflation occurs from a robustly growing money supply, and price inflation occurs when monetary inflation rates exceed productivity rates.

If we increase economic output, and the money supply remains more or less static, prices must fall as more goods and services compete for the same amount of money. Conversely inflation can be the result of some exogenous supply shock, but it is typically not the result of anything but growth in money.
 
Edited:
If we increase economic output, and the money supply remains more or less static, interest rates must rise prices must fall as more demand for capital goods and services competes for the same amount of money. [ . . . ]
. . . And without any ability to lower the interest rate, economic output growth is choked off and investment and consumption fall.
 
Edited: . . . And without any ability to lower the interest rate, economic output growth is choked off and investment and consumption fall.

No, there is no reason why economic growth is "choked off" by lower prices. In fact, there are historical periods of very high growth coupled with deflation in prices. These periods are rare, because seigniorage is a massive tax and a lucrative source of revenue that politicians and bankers are unlikely to forgo on an ignorant public.

Viewed more rationally, the natural scarcity of sound money prevents malinvestment and financial speculation, in favor of more productive endeavours. Depressions and recessions merely represent the liquidation of prior bad investments. The idea that everyone who wants a loan should get one at the expense of everyone else is bankrupt, both morally and intellectually. It is the saver, who has earned their wealth by contributing productively to society who should decide where scarce capital should be employed best. It is the saver who should be burdened with the entirety of that risk, not society at large, and especially not the poor.
 

Back
Top Bottom