Financial and Monetary Systems

An economist explains why trade deficits aren't a bad thing

A worker tracks shipping containers at Tanjung Priok port in North Jakarta, Indonesia December 15, 2015. REUTERS/Darren Whiteside

Wheat and cars are part of the explanation. Image: REUTERS/Darren Whiteside - GF10000266173

William D Lastrapes
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Financial and Monetary Systems?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how United States is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

United States

Most Americans seem to think international trade deficits are a bad thing.

A March poll, for example, showed that more than two-thirds think the U.S. should take steps to reduce the trade deficit with China, even if a resulting trade war drives up consumer prices.

That’s in large part because of the notion expressed by some that the U.S. is “losing” if it has a trade deficit, one of the main justifications used for fighting a trade war with China.

As I’ll explain, such a notion is bad economics.

Have you read?

Comparative advantage

One of the first things budding economists learn is the principle of “comparative advantage.” A country has a comparative advantage when it can produce a product or service more cheaply than others.

Image: Market Watch

For example, the U.S. specializes in producing wheat because it is cheaper to do so here than in Japan, while Japan specializes in producing cars for the same reason. Specialization with trade allows consumers in both countries to buy more wheat and more cars.

Much economic research has shown that when countries trade with each other, global wealth grows, and all countries gain.

 The U.S. has a comparative advantage in wheat in part because of large and efficient fields like those in North Dakota.
Image: Reuters/Julie Ingwersen

What this means for trade deficits

Policies that aim to reduce trade deficits hinder trade and work against the potential gains from comparative advantage.

A country like the U.S. runs an annual trade deficit with a partner country when Americans buy more goods and services from the partner than they sell to it. As a result, money flows out of the U.S. to the country, which sounds bad.

But that’s not the end of the story. Those foreigners with the trade surplus – let’s say in China – now have extra saving that needs to be put to work. A lack of productive investment opportunities at home means they look to other countries – like the U.S. – to profitably use their money.

In other words, money flowing out to pay for imports flows back in to help pay for productive investment in new capital. The U.S. is an appealing place for the Chinese to put their money because the U.S. is really good at producing capital goods. Put another way, it has a comparative advantage in investment.

In 2017, Americans bought about US$552 billion more goods and services from abroad than foreigners purchased from the U.S. But foreigners sent about that amount right back to the U.S. to help American businesses build factories, create jobs and increase growth.

In short, trade deficits mean that international capital markets are working the way they should. They do not imply a loss of American wealth, or that other countries are “taking advantage” of the U.S.

Richer as a result

In general, trade imbalances are driven by natural market forces and reflect efficient borrowing and lending across the globe. And while it is always important to consider the consequences of international trade for inequality and the distribution of the gains from trade – there are no guarantees that those gains will be evenly distributed – the end result is higher overall global economic growth.

Trade deficits can be a problem when those deficits are due to government borrowing in countries with weak economic and political institutions, or in smaller countries where free capital flows might be destabilizing.

But for well-functioning economies like the U.S., trade deficits are not an inherent problem. In fact, we’re better off having trade deficits than imposing tariffs and restrictive trade policies to prevent them.

Trade deficits make America great.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Financial and Monetary SystemsGeo-Economics and PoliticsTrade and Investment
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

World Bank says global economy stabilizing and other economics stories to read

Joe Myers

June 14, 2024

About Us



Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum