Bhandari’s Trade Equilibrium vs. Buffett’s Import Certificates Want to Keep Your Job? Want to Get a Job? The Theory of Trade Equilibrium Can Help

I want to briefly compare my theory of Trade Equilibrium with that of Mr. Warren Buffett’s model for balancing trade using Import Certificates (IC’s). (Sources of data where applicable are: (a) Buffett & Loomis, 2003; (b) Bureau of Labor Statistics; and (c) my previous writings.)

Definition

Bhandari’s Model

I define “Trade Equilibrium” as a situation when trading among different countries is such that the trading partners remain generally deficit-free from one another over a cycle of every 2-3 years. This theory has two major goals: (a) to stop exporting of additional American jobs and (b) to regain the American jobs already exported by “legally requiring” the dollar/trade surplus countries to eliminate their surplus over a ten year period by buying American products.

Buffett’s Model

Mr. Buffett suggested that the U.S. can achieve trade balance by limiting the value of imports to the value of exports by using what he called Import Certificates (ICs).

Legal Framework

Buffett’s Model

America would need to legislate it. It would require establishment of a separate governmental unit to administer it.

Bhandari’s Model

America would need to legislate it too. It would also require a separate governmental unit to administer it. Its functions would include the following:

  • Monitor American trade by country and by totals.
  • Monitor to assure that the exporting countries (collectively) use the dollars (that they have obtained by exporting their products (goods and services) to America) to import products from America.
  • Monitor to assure that the trade surplus countries such as China and Japan (which already have accumulated huge trade surpluses against America over the years) reduce these surpluses at the rate of 10% a year by importing products from America.
    • Let me emphasize that this requirement will be in addition to the requirement of not creating any new trade surplus in their favor. This requirement is totally absent in the Buffett model.

It is the responsibility of the countries exporting to America to assure that they don’t export more to America than what they import from America—if they wish to continue to do business with America.

Chronology of Trades

Buffet’s Model

Since American entities cannot import without first obtaining ICs, American entities have to export first to generate those ICs. It is another major weakness in the Buffett’s model.

Bhandari’s Model

Any country can initiate a trade anytime, importing or exporting. However, over a cycle of 2-3 years, it is the responsibility of the foreign country with a trade surplus with America to eliminate this surplus by importing products from America. How they fulfill this obligation is up to them. A reasonable way to use those surpluses, for example, would be to import products from America to improve their infrastructure. Or, spend those dollars by visiting America as tourists.

Volume of Trade

Buffet’s Model

Buffett’s model tends to limit imports for two reasons: (a) Its chronology of trade and (b) Its increased cost of imports to America.

Bhandari’s Model

A major strength of this model is that it does not place limits on Americans importing products from abroad if they need them. Limiting trade, imports or exports, tends to hamper economies, jobs, creativity, and innovation overtime.

 

Operational Steps for Trading

Buffet’s Model

It appears to involve the following steps: (a) An American party exports products; (b) the U.S. government awards it an IC equal to the dollar amount of exports (it is a bonus for exporting); (c) a foreign party interested in exporting to America, or an American party interested in importing into America would have to first buy those ICs for a price in the open market to be able to make those trades.

The American exporters can use the premium they get from selling their ICs to reduce the prices of products they export. This in turn would increase American exports. Similarly, the American importers or foreign exporters would have to pay a price to buy the ICs to do the trade. This would increase the cost of importing products in America which in turn would reduce the American imports. This in turn, would negatively affect the American industries, jobs, price levels, and consumptions based on these imports.

Bhandari’s Model

Americans can import whatever and whenever they need to. Foreigners can export to America likewise. Their prices and volume would be determined by the open market operations. This process is much simpler than Buffett’s complex model.

Trading ICs

Buffett’s Model

Since the U.S. exports billions of dollars’ worth of products (goods and services) every year, billions of dollars’ worth of ICs would have to be issued yearly. Since different American importers would have different importing needs, these ICs would have to be denominated into different dollar amounts. These ICs then would need to be traded on an exchange for the convenience of their sellers and buyers.

The governmental cost of operating this unit was one reason because of which the trade proposal, that was based on the ICs model and submitted by Senators Dorgan and Feingold in 2006, did not reach the senate floor for a vote.

 

Bhandari’s Model

It does not have any instruments such as ICs for trading. As such there is no decrease or increase in the prices of exports and imports.

Impact on Jobs

Buffett’s Model

Creating jobs appears to be a tertiary goal of this model. In their 2003 article, they mentioned it only briefly. Having said that, trade balance would definitely save American jobs.

Bhandari’s Model

Protecting current jobs and creating net new jobs are the clearly stated main goals of my model.

Once the law of Trade Equilibrium becomes effective, there would be no new U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. currently incurs a new trade deficit of about $649 billion a year, losing about 1.95 million jobs annually.

Beginning with the year in which the law becomes effective, the foreign countries will have to reduce their existing trade surplus to a zero over a ten year period— at the rate of 10% a year. This would increase American exports accordingly and create millions of net new American jobs year after year. The U.S. owed $4.6 trillion on current account to foreigners as of February 2011. Since each million dollar of net exports would create 3net new jobs, a total of 13.8 million net new jobs would be created in America by eliminating America’s existing current account deficit over a ten year period.

Bhandari’s Model for Economic Revolution

                        America must enact the theory of Trade Equilibrium (a) to maintain its sovereignty and (b) to create jobs, reduce poverty, increase stockholders’ wealth, increase governmental tax revenue, and trim tax rates in America.

With more jobs and higher incomes, Americans would spend more on American and foreign products. The resultant multiplication of trade between countries will give birth to the next economic revolution—effects of which would be many times more than that of the Industrial Revolution. And it would be a win-win, positive-sum phenomenon, not a zero-sum game.

TRADE EQUILIBRIUM, A BETTER FISCAL MODEL THAN THE SIMPSON-BOWLES’ PLAN

OBJECTIVES & OVERLAPS

                         The principal purpose of this article is to propose that the United States enact the concept of Trade Equilibrium (a) to maintain its sovereignty and (b) to create jobs, to reduce poverty, to increase stockholders’ wealth, to increase governmental tax revenues, and to trim tax rates in America.

                        Toward that end, this article also argues that the theory of Trade Equilibrium, as I am proposing it, presents a much better approach to America’s fiscal health than that is possible using the Simpson Bowles plan.

                        Let me note that certain contents of this article are similar to some of my previous writings. Conversely, some of the other topics discussed in here are different from my earlier efforts in terms of contents, reasoning, and structure. (Sources of data used: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wikipedia—and by implication the sources it itself used! And others as noted! Analysis and calculations based on these data, if any, are by me.)

 UNDERSTANDING AMERICAN NATIONAL DEBT

                        The total American national debt has two parts: (a) the public debt (it consists of government securities held by the public) and (b) the foreign or intra-governmental debt (it consists of the American governmental securities held by the foreigners). As of February 2011, the U.S. debt held by the public was $9.6 trillion and the intra-governmental (foreign) debt was $4.6 trillion, for a total of $14.2 trillion.

                        Technically speaking, the public debt is the amount that the federal government owes to the American public. Since the federal government has taxing power, the public debt represents the amount that the American people owe to each other. From a socio-economic point of view, however, it may suggest existence of unemployment, poverty, and gulf between the haves and the have-nots.

                        Often, the foreign debt represents an excess of American imports over American exports. However, it may also include items such as follows: (a) the funds the Americans send overseas to their families and others, (b) the amount the Americans spend when travelling abroad, and (c) the amount the America spends on fighting terrorism and wars overseas. An increasing foreign trade debt is a primary reason of increasing American unemployment.

 UNDERSTANDING AMERICAN BUDGET DEFICIT

                        The American budget deficit/surplus represents the difference between the revenues and expenses of the American government during a fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). The budget deficits are often financed by taking loans from the public. Budget surpluses, if any, are carried forward and/or used to pay off the existing debt.

 TRADE EQUILIBRIUM WOULD ELIMINATE FOREIGN DEBT

                        Let us assume that American lawmakers pass the law of Trade Equilibrium making it effective January 1, 2013. This act would then have the following consequences (data related to interest and compounding have been ignored).

  1.  America, which currently averages an annual trade deficit of $649 billion a year, no longer face this problem!
  2. No additional export of 1.95 million U.S. jobs a year—a result of the average annual trade deficit cited above!
  3. No additional tax expenditures on the jobs lost!
  4. Net new purchases of $460 billion (10% of $4.6 trillion) worth of American goods and services by foreigners a year for ten years! Or investment in America!
  5. Elimination of American foreign debt in ten years (2022)!
  6. Creation of U.S. trade surplus beginning 2023!

 TRADE EQUILIBRIUM WOULD REDUCE/ELIMINATE PUBLIC DEBT

                        Using Isabelle Cohen, Thomas Freiling, and Eric Robinson’s (2012) research findings as a “broad” guideline, the $4.6 trillion dollars coming back home (new investment) would generate new tax revenues as follows.

  1. About $2.875 trillion in new federal tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $287.5 billion a year!
  2. About $1.794 trillion in new state and local tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $179.4 billion a year!
  3. About a total of $4.669 trillion in new total tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $466.9 billion a year!

                        These tax revenues would take place without making any changes in the current tax code.

                         Under the Trade Equilibrium Act, it would be the responsibility of the foreign countries to decide how to spend these $460 billion dollars in America.. Subject to the American laws, they can buy whatever American goods and services they want to.

 SIMPSON-BOWLES COMMISSION

                        The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR), popularly known as Bowles-Simpson or Simpson-Bowles Commission, was established in 2010 by President Barack Obama to identify “…policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run.” Its December 1, 2010 report failed to receive Congressional approval for a variety of reasons. However, it continues to get wide attention. Its authors, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, continue to promote their report to prestigious American audiences.

 THEORY OF TRADE EQUILIBRIUM AND THE SIMPSON BOWLES’ PLAN,

                         The Simpson-Bowles Plan consisted of six major parts projecting a total savings of $4.123 trillion dollars over a nine year period (2012-2020). An itemized comparison of these savings with that of those possible from the Theory of Trade Equilibrium that I am proposing for enactment, is presented in the following exhibit:

 Exhibit

Theory of Trade Equilibrium versus the Simpson Bowles’ Plan 

1. Spending CutsSimpson-Bowles: $1,661 billion of discretionary spending cuts by putting in place discretionary spending caps into law lower than what is projected to be spent

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, spending cuts is not a part of my theory. However, any and all unnecessary expenses should be eliminated. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory.

2. Additional RevenuesSimpson-Bowles: $995 billion in additional revenue with $785 billion in new revenues from tax reform by lowering income and corporate tax rates and broadening the base by eliminating tax expenditures. An additional $210 billion in revenue is also raised in other revenue by switching to the Chained-CPI and an increase in the federal gasoline tax

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, tax reform is not a part of my theory. However, any and all necessary tax reforms must be pursued. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory. 

3. Healthcare SavingsSimpson-Bowles: $341 billion in federal health care savings by reforming the Sustainable Growth Rate for Medicare, repeals the CLASS Act (which has already happened), increase Medicare cost sharing, reform health-care tort, change provider payments, increase drug rebates and establishes a long-term budget for total federal health-care spending after 2020 to GDP + 1 percent.

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, healthcare reform is not a part of my theory. However, any and all necessary healthcare reforms must be pursued. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory. 

4. Other Mandatory SavingsSimpson-Bowles: $215 billion in other mandatory savings by moving to the Chained CPI for all inflation-indexed programs, reform the military and civil service retirement system, reduce farm subsidies, reduce student loans and various other reforms.

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, mandatory savings is not a part of my theory. However, any and all necessary savings must be pursued. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory. 

5. Social Security SavingsSimpson-Bowles: $238 billion in Social Security reform, to be used to ensure the program is sustainably solvent in the infinite horizon by slowing benefit growth for high and medium-income workers, increase the early and normal retirement age to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 by indexing it to longevity, index cost of living adjustments to the Chained-CPI, include newly hired state and local workers after 2020, increase the payroll tax cap to cover 90 percent of wages by 2050 and creates a new minimum and old-age benefit. 

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, social security savings is not a part of my theory. However, any and all necessary savings must be pursued. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory. 

6. Budgets Process ReformsSimpson-Bowles: Budget Process Reforms by creating discretionary spending caps and caps total federal revenue at 20 percent of GDP.

An additional $673 billion is saved due to lower projected spending interest payments as a result from lower deficits. 

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, budget process reforms is not a part of my theory. However, any and all necessary savings must be pursued. When done, it would only enhance the value of this theory. 

Trade Equilibrium Effects Over Ten & More YearsSimpson-Bowles: A total of $4.123 trillion in savings is projected in this plan over a nine year period, or $458 billion dollars a year, or $4.581 trillion for 10 years. It projects to eliminate federal deficit by 2035 (about 22-23 years from now). 

Trade Equilibrium Effects Over Ten Years: As defined, and as noted above, my theory would generate tax revenues as follows:

About $2.875 trillion in new federal tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $287.5 billion a year!

  1. About $1.794 trillion in new state and local tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $179.4 billion a year!
  2. About a total of $4.669 trillion in new total tax revenues over a ten year period, or about $466.9 billion a year!

 Suggestions for Additional Research

  1. Effect of an elimination of new U.S. trade deficit of $649 billion a year on the U.S. debt?
  2. Effect of an elimination of additional export of 1.95 million U.S. jobs? Among other variables, it would reduce some tax expenditure (unemployment benefits, etc.).
  3. Distribution of dollars coming back home ($460 billion a year–10% of $4.6 trillion of foreign debt—among various parts of American economy).
  4. Effect of U.S. trade surplus beginning 2023 on its economy!
  5. Effect on the economy of a dollar surplus country as it spends those dollars in buying American goods and services! Effect of using billions of dollars on improving its infrastructure, such as transportation, water, and food!
  6. What is the value of national pride, national security, national economic independence that would arise following the theory of Trade Equilibrium? 
Trade Equilibrium With A Major DistinctionSimpson-Bowles: Its 65 page report does not deal with its effect on American employment in any direct way—probably because it wasn’t its goal. 

Trade Equilibrium: As defined, saving existing jobs and creating net new jobs is a significant outcome of my theory.

 

TRADE EQUILIBRIUM FOR FISCAL CLIMB

The theory of Trade Equilibrium that I am proposing would not only help America avert the so called fiscal cliff, it would also place the country on a path to a fiscal climb. Over the years, it would wipe out the entire debt both public and foreign; while protecting and creating millions of net new jobs.

“Trade Equilibrium” is a situation when trading among different countries is such that the trading partners remain generally deficit-free from one another over a cycle of every 2-3 years. This theory has two major goals: (a) to stop exporting of additional American jobs and (b) to regain the American jobs already exported by “requiring” the dollar/trade surplus countries to eliminate their surplus over a ten year period by buying American products.

Under this concept, subject to the U.S. laws, foreign countries can continue to export to America as long as they use the dollars so obtained to import goods or services made in America; or make net new investments in it.

Fiscal Facts

In order to make this case, let me first present America’s current situation in terms of trade, jobs, and debt (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics):

  1. Debt: As of February 2011, the U.S. debt held by the public was $9.6 trillion and the intra-governmental (foreign) debt was $4.6 trillion, for a total of $14.2 trillion.
  2. Trade deficit: During the 2001-2010 decade, the total U.S trade deficit amounted to $6.486 trillion—or an annual average trade deficit of about $649 billion.
  3. Jobs exported: During the 2001-2010 decade, the U.S. exported a total of 19.5 million jobs, or an average of 1.95 million jobs a year. In other words, the U.S. lost 3 jobs per $1 million of trade deficit.
  4. Unemployment: In 2001, 6.8 million people were unemployed (16 years and over, unadjusted). In 2010, the number of unemployed people sky-rocketed to 14.8 million (16 years and over, unadjusted).
  5. Rate of unemployment: In December 2001, the U.S. unemployment rate was 5.7%. In December 2010, the U.S. unemployment rate went up to 9.4%.

Trade Equilibrium Would Eliminate Foreign Debt

Let us assume that American lawmakers agree to pass the law of Trade Equilibrium making it effective January 1, 2013. Based on the facts presented above, this act would then have the following consequences (data related to interest and compounding have been ignored for simplicity):

Beginning 2013, considering the world as a whole, there would be no new U.S. trade deficit. In other words, no more new trade deficit of about $649 billion a year!

Beginning 2013, the foreign countries will have to buy net $460 billion (10% of $4.6 trillion) worth of goods and services from America a year for ten years. The U.S. foreign debt as such would be reduced to zero at the end of 2022.

Trade Equilibrium Would Reduce/Eliminate Public Debt

According to a study done by Isabelle Cohen, Thomas Freiling, and Eric Robinson (2012), over twenty years, investing $1.00 in sewer systems and water infrastructure returns a full $2.03 in tax revenue to federal and state/local governments, of which $1.35 specifically accrues at the federal level.

Using these findings as a “broad” guideline, the $4.6 trillion dollars coming back home (new investment) would generate, over a ten year period, about $2.875 trillion in new federal tax revenues and about $1.794 trillion in new state and local tax revenues (for a total of $4.669 trillion). These tax revenues would arise in without making any changes in the current tax code. The public debt would be reduced drastically likewise.

Under the Trade Equilibrium Act it is the responsibility of the foreign countries to decide how to spend these $460 billion dollars in America in 2013. Subject to the American laws, they can buy whatever American goods and services they want to. At the end of 2013, the American foreign debt will be reduced by that huge amount. If a foreign country does not cooperate, America, should switch its commerce to other countries. It would be suicidal for a foreign country not to cooperate.

Trade Equilibrium Would Create Jobs in America

Under the Trade Equilibrium Act, beginning 2013, there is no net export of American jobs. Accordingly, the U.S.—which has been exporting an average of 1.95 million jobs every year over the last ten years—would save them from being exported. In addition, the foreigners buying net $460 billion worth of American goods and services (to reduce their dollar holdings) would create 1.38 million net new jobs in the U.S. per year.

Where would these new found billions of dollars go? Subject to the American laws, they can go anywhere their foreign owners want them to. Trade Equilibrium law would be also hugely beneficial to the dollar surplus countries as they spend those dollars. Imagine the benefits of investing billions of dollars on improving their infrastructure: transportation, water, and food. They would reap a rate of return on these investments much higher than the meager 1.7 percent interest rate they earn for lending money to the U.S. treasury.

Trade Equilibrium, A Phenomenon

With more jobs and higher incomes, Americans would spend more on American and foreign products. The resultant multiplication of trade between countries will give birth to the next economic revolution—effects of which would be many times more than that of the industrial and Internet revolutions. And it would be a win-win, positive-sum phenomenon, not a zero-sum game. It would not only stop Americans’ earnings from declining, it would raise them—as it creates jobs worldwide.

Trade Equilibrium law would give people jobs, food, education, shelter and medical care. It would enhance democracy, peace, prosperity, and innovations around the world. Passing the Trade Equilibrium law would also be much simpler than trying to resolve the current debate over tax rates and revenues. How the American business, the American labor, and the American policy makers could not adopt a program that would provide billions of dollars in new investment; and that would create millions of net new jobs?