Mistaken identities make for bad trade policy

Election season debates over trade policy have brought renewed attention to the United States' longstanding deficit in foreign trade. Critics from both the right and left sides of the political spectrum, including Donald Trump and his allies, hold the trade deficit responsible for a range of alleged ills, among them, slower US economic growth, fewer jobs, the decline in manufacturing, and a transfer of American wealth to foreign owners. Trump supporters' ideas to reduce US trade deficits, such as far-reaching taxes on international transactions or forced dollar devaluation, rest on particular theories of why the deficits have arisen and persisted. These theories often have little basis other than macroeconomic accounting identities--relationships that are always true, by definition, and that therefore are consistent with a range of economic outcomes. Two key macroeconomic identities, the national income and product identity and the balance-of-payments identity, have been widely abused as justifications for radical policies to balance US trade. The identities describe relationships that necessarily hold among macro variables, but without the further input of behavioral reasoning, they cannot yield valid predictions or constructive policy conclusions. Identity-based reasoning is especially dangerous because it disguises the collateral damage that superficial fixes may inflict. It is much better to identify and directly correct the distortions that cause excessive trade deficits to emerge and persist.