Prestowitz: But what are we going to sell? – Foreign Policy (blog)

Obama’s was
one of the better inaugural addresses, and in emphasizing the need, in an age
of globalization, for collaboration between all sectors of society including
the government and on the necessity of executing the rights of each in order to
assure those of all it struck a resonant chord.

However,
executing those rights will be a lot easier in a robust, growing economy than
in a stagnant one. In the past several months and in the past week there has
been much talk of budgets, debt, taxes and tax cuts, borrowing ceilings, economic
recovery, social insurance programs, and lower interest rates through
quantitative easing (printing more money, essentially). But what I have heard
neither the president nor anyone else explain, is what we Americans are going
to sell.

We talk
about all of these programs, policies, and initiatives as if they are the main
game and as if the U.S. economy is a constant that can be automatically pushed
and shoved in different ways to achieve desired ends. In fact, this is not at
all the case. Take quantitative easing as an example. The economy is not
recovering from the recent crisis as quickly or creating as many new jobs as
everyone would like. The Federal Reserve has already reduced interest rates to
virtually zero. So to push things along faster, it decides actively to buy
assets in an effort to reduce the cost of money even more and thereby to
encourage bank lending, borrowing, and investment. But do investors borrow and
invest just because money is cheap? Look at Boeing. It’s new 787 Dreamliners,
absolutely key to the company’s future, are all sitting on the ground waiting
for engineers to figure out how to stop their lithium-ion batteries from
burning and setting the planes on fire. Is Boeing going to take a big loan and
redouble Dreamliner production right now?

But at least
Boeing has something to sell if it can fix the batteries. For the United States
the question of what it will sell is much more vexing. You say Boeing jets, as
one obvious example. But those batteries are actually made in Japan along with
the wings of the new Dreamliner and lots of other parts. And if it’s not made
in Japan, much of the rest of the plane is made in a wide variety of other countries.
Nothing wrong with this, in principle, in a globalized world economy. But for
the United States it means that even if the batteries get fixed, there won’t be
a huge wave of investment to take advantage of the Fed’s cheap money.

Amid all
the debate and speeches of the past several weeks, no important officials or
commentators have mentioned the U.S. trade (technically current account)
deficit. Economists generally consider that a deficit equal to three percent or
more of GDP is unsustainable in the long term. The U.S. deficit has been at
that level for a number of years. That deficit is worth 6-10 million jobs,
enough to virtually wipe out unemployment in the United States. Getting rid of
that deficit would or even halving it would go a long way toward executing the
self-evident rights of each American while also resolving the split between
those who wish to tax less and those who wish to spend more.

Yet, even as
that deficit and the international debt to which it constantly adds remain
un-discussed, they are getting worse. 
This may sound counter-intuitive because of all the recent media talk of
cheap shale gas and rising labor costs in China making U.S. based manufacturing
more competitive and driving a wave of re-shoring and relocation of global production
to America. But while it may be the case that some of this is occurring, the
numbers don’t reflect it. While U.S. oil and energy imports have fallen
dramatically as a result of the U.S. shale gas and shale oil production booms,
the fact is that the U.S. trade deficit has remained about the same and even
grown a bit. This is because U.S. imports of manufactured goods, services, and
agricultural products have increased enough 
to more than compensate for the fall in energy imports. In other words, we
have swapped imports of Saudi Ariabian oil for imports of Japanese lithium-ion
batteries and British banking services.

Obama won’t
see the execution of rights for everyone that he wants to see and that he has
promised unless he reduces unemployment. He won’t be able to do that with more
fiscal stimulus because the congress will not appropriate more stimulus funds
in view of the deficit and debt issues. Nor will the Federal Reserve be able to
loosen money much more. It has pretty much used up its ammunition, and as we
noted above, it’s not clear that it could have much practical affect even if it
had more ammo.

The only way
out of this situation is to reduce the trade deficit. But to do that America
must have something to sell. Maybe the president can tell us what it will be in
the forthcoming State of the Union address.     

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}