How the MAC Would Help Restore American Manufacturing

John R. Hansen

America’s growing trade deficits, especially in manufactured goods, indicate that our nation’s international competitiveness – the ability of Americans to earn as much producing exports as they spend on imports – has fallen dramatically. Since the mid-1970s, rising trade deficits have killed millions of American jobs and have forced tens of thousands of American factories to downsize or close their U.S.-based production lines. 

This note describes how a Market Access Charge (MAC) could put these U.S. workers and factories back on the job.

Many factors have contributed to America’s declining international competitiveness, but most important has been misaligned exchange rates that are inconsistent with balanced trade. Other contributing problems such as inadequate investment in plant, equipment, R&D, and staff training are very real and serious, but these can be solved only when American companies are once again confident that such investments will be profitable. And in most cases, profitability can be assured only if exchange rates between the dollar and other trading partner currencies are, on average, consistent with balanced trade.

Why America Needs a New Trade Policy for the 21st Century

Today’s trade policies clearly do not defend America’s right to a level playing field for international trade – a fundamental requirement if America’s labor and capital resources are to be employed with maximum efficiency, and if America’s future generations are not to be burdened by foreign debts caused by today’s trade deficits.

America’s international trade policies served it well for much of the 20th century. Today, however, the policies are badly out of date because, starting in the 1970s, the market forces that determine exchange rates began to change dramatically.

Historically, the demand and supply of real imports and exports determined exchange rates, much as in the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. But starting about 40 years ago, world commerce has become increasingly dominated by financial trade in capital and foreign exchange. As a result, exchange rates set in today’s financial markets are rarely consistent with the rates needed to balance imports and exports. This problem is particularly severe for the United States because it consistently attracts excessive inflows of foreign capital that drive the value of foreign currencies down against the dollar, thereby making American goods more expensive for foreigners and foreign goods cheaper for Americans -- a process that inevitably causes US trade deficits. Inflows of foreign-source money are driven by the following factors:

1. The U.S. dollar, which is the world’s premier reserve currency, is more widely used than any other currency for the invoicing of international transactions, for their settlement, and for storing wealth.
2. The U.S. financial markets are the largest, deepest and most liquid in the world, and they are regarded as a global safe haven in the time of financial problems – even if the problems started in the U.S. markets as happened with the Crash of 2008.
3. As the largest market in the world for consumer and industrial goods and services, America has for years been the target of currency manipulators. Countries like Germany, Japan, and China have bought billions of dollars of U.S. currency and other dollar-denominated assets with their own local currencies to drive the value of their currencies down against the dollar. This makes it very difficult for American producers to compete either at home against imported products or abroad with exports.

If America’s need for foreign capital and its supply of dollar-denominated assets had no limit, the foreign demand for these assets would not cause dollar’s value to rise. But this is clearly not the case. Excess demand for the dollar and dollar-based assets drives the dollar’s exchange rate against foreign currencies to levels that are totally inconsistent with rates needed to balance U.S. imports and exports.

If America is to have an exchange rate consistent with balanced trade, it must implement policies that keep the foreign demand for dollars and dollar-based assets consistent with America’s need for imported capital. 

In the short term, specific measures such as countervailing currency intervention are needed to fight currency manipulation and other unfair trade practices. [1]  For the longer term, America must restore the now-broken link between the dollar’s exchange rate and balanced U.S. trade. This can only be done by moderating net capital inflows to levels consistent with a competitive, trade-balancing exchange rate for the dollar.

The best possible way to achieve this would be a Market Access Charge (MAC). A MAC is simply a “peak load pricing” mechanism, very similar to those used around the world by both the private and public sectors to balance demand and supply for services such as airline flights, rental cars, hotel rooms, electricity use, and vehicular access to the central business districts of cities like London during rush hours. America needs a similar demand-moderating mechanism when its financial services markets are clogged with excess foreign capital.

A Market Access Charge would reduce the demand by foreigners for access to our markets under such conditions by reducing net yields by just enough to make such investments less attractive to foreign traders, speculators, and manipulators. As a result, the demand by foreigners for dollars and dollar-based assets would be moderated by just enough to reduce upward pressures on the dollar – the primary cause over time of the overvalued dollar, U.S. trade deficits, lost jobs, and failing factories.

How would the MAC Operate?

The Market Access Charge (MAC) would operate as follows:

Trigger 

•       A non-zero U.S. trade deficit over the past 6-12 months (the review period) would trigger a non-zero MAC rate. [2] [3]  

Rate

•      An initial MAC rate equal to half of the current spread between average foreign and US interest rates would be charged on the value of the incoming foreign-source money once the deficit trigger point was reached. (Note: the cross-border interest rate spread is the main factor driving cross-border flows of foreign-source money. Setting the initial MAC rate at half this level would allow introducing the MAC without shocking international currency markets.) [5] 

•       At the end of each review period (say every six to twelve months), data on the trade deficit as a percentage of GDP would be reviewed to see if the MAC charge should be increased or reduced.

•       The rate would rise or fall in line with changes in the trade deficit according to an elasticity factor. For example, if the elasticity factor were set at one (1.0), an increase in the trade deficit equal to one percent of GDP over the review period would increase the MAC charge by one percentage point (100 basis points) for the following 12 months. Once the trade deficit began to fall relative to GDP, the MAC rate would decline in the same way, returning to zero once the trade deficit dropped to zero for the previous twelve months.[4]

Base

•       All inflows of foreign-source money would be subject to the same MAC rate. Applying the same rate to all inflows avoids the problems of evasion, corruption, favoritism, and economic distortions that other countries like Brazil encountered with capital inflow charges when they tried to discriminate between “good” and “bad” capital inflows.

•       Because the MAC is charged every time foreign-source money enters the United States, a common rate for all inflows automatically discourages short-term speculative in-and-out flows. Conversely, a common rate imposes a minuscule effective burden on the life-time yields of foreign direct investments because such investments come in only once, stay for a long time, and almost always have a much higher expected rate of return per dollar invested than speculative investments do.

Administration

•       The MAC would be collected automatically and electronically on all inflows of foreign-source money by the computer systems already present in the handful of U.S. banks that handle most of America’s cross-border financial transactions. Under traditional correspondent banking arrangements, these gateway banks would also service incoming cross-border transactions for other banks.

•      Foreign speculators seeking access to US financial markets would pay the Market Access Charge. The MAC is not a tax on Americans.

•       The MAC charges collected by the gateway correspondent banks would immediately be transferred electronically to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. 

•       Funds delivered to the US Treasury could be used at the discretion of the Treasury in line with authorizations by Congress and orders of the Administration. Where feasible, special preference would be given to programs designed to improve the global competitiveness of American enterprises and workers. Such programs could include, for example, the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), other types of support for R&D, worker training and trade adjustment assistance programs, infrastructure development, a bank for American International Competitiveness to help finance productivity-enhancing private sector investments in plant and equipment, more efficient border protection operations including antidumping and countervailing duty programs, the liquidation of foreign-held U.S. government debt, and a special fund to help offset any increased costs of borrowing to finance government operations linked to MAC charges on the purchase of government debt obligations.

In sum, a Market Access Charge (MAC) offers the best hope of providing the basis for restoring America’s international competitiveness by fixing the undervaluation of foreign currencies against the dollar.  And to address U.S. trade problems and job losses associated with trade cheating by other countries, the MAC should be supported by parallel legislation that would increase the effectiveness of our traditional measures against trade cheating.

These policies, coupled with supporting efforts to simplify the overly complex tax code, to bring effective tax rates more into line with international standards, to introduce a VAT-like refund for foreign source money used to purchase exported US goods or to build and complete physical assets such as factories in the US.  The MAC-generated funds could also be used to bring health care costs for US workers down, making them closer to those paid by manufacturers in other countries.

In short, introducing the MAC could generate millions of well-paying middle-class jobs, save thousands of factories from closure, and leave future generations free of excessive debt caused by America’s living beyond its means today, spending more on imports than it earns producing exports.

rev. May 25, 2023

________________________________________

Notes:

[1] See for example the work of Bergsten and Gagnon at the Peterson Institute for International Economics here and here where they propose countervailing currency intervention as a way to fight currency manipulation by countries like China.

[2] The U.S. trade deficit is suggested as the key parameter triggering the MAC because it is a well-established and officially available number that directly reflects the misalignment of the dollar. Its relevance and objectivity make it far superior, for example, to debatable, subjective criteria such as the difference between the market exchange rate and the “fundamental equilibrium exchange rate,” an indicator that has been suggested as a test for currency manipulation.

[3] The MAC charge rates on incoming foreign-source money, the trade deficit trigger point level, the adjustment factor, and the review period used here to explain the MAC’s operation are all reasonable estimates of appropriate values. The actual values for these four parameters would be discussed during the legislative review process with members of the Advisory Committee on International Exchange Rate Policy mandated by Sec. 702 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015  (H.R.644), experts from organizations involved in trade policy such as the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), and others as appropriate. Once consensus was reached, these four parameters would be set into law to provide clear guidance for the Government officials responsible for implementing the MAC. The basic logic of the values suggested here is as follows:

A basic MAC charge of 50 basis points may seem too low to affect foreign capital inflows. However, this rate was chosen for several reasons: 

• First, capital inflows, especially those from the private rather than the public sector, are highly sensitive to opportunities for profit and thus to relatively small changes in perspective net yields. For example, the “taper tantrum,” which was driven by the hint that the Fed might begin to raise rates by tapering off the quantitative easing program, triggered massive flows of capital from emerging market countries into the U.S. 

• Second, we know from Federal Reserve experience that changes as small as 25 basis points in the policy rate can have a significant impact on capital markets. 

• Third, an excessively high MAC rate could cause damaging disruptions rather than gradual adjustments in international capital markets.

The trade deficit trigger point for a non-zero MAC charge is set at zero because there is no reason that the United States should have to suffer trade deficits and the consequent loss of well-paying jobs, productive capacity that is often critical to national security, international technological leadership, and debt that future generations will have to repay in one way or another.

The adjustment factor – the elasticity or ratio of percentage point changes in the trade deficit to percentage changes in the MAC rate – is set at unity for two reasons. First, this would assure a more rapid response to rising exchange rate values and trade deficits than would a value of less than one. Second, in line with the philosophy that trade changes generated by the MAC should be constructively gradual rather than damagingly fast, a factor of unity avoids the risks associated with a higher adjustment factor such as two, which would, for example, increase the MAC charge by two percent for every one percentage point of increase in the trade deficit as a percent of GDP.

A review period of twelve months is suggested for two reasons. First, because the MAC affects the dollar’s exchange rate indirectly by moderating capital flows into U.S. financial markets rather than changing exchange rates directly by fiat or by direct government currency market intervention, a few months may be required before the dollar’s exchange rate moves by enough to even begin affecting U.S. trade balances. 

Second, once the MAC begins to change the dollar’s exchange rate, two or more years may pass before trade patterns change significantly. This time is required because changing trading patterns requires buyers to complete existing contracts, find new suppliers, negotiate new contracts, and accept delivery of goods. This is true even if, as can be expected, the new suppliers are located within the United States rather than abroad.

The MAC would create a “signaling mechanism” that could change market sentiment and yield results more quickly. However, realizing the full impact of a MAC on structural trade deficits will almost certainly take three years or so. 

Consequently, it would be a mistake to keep reviewing the past six months’ experience and raising the MAC charge if the desired results were not seen. Also, making adjustments in the MAC rate too frequently would increase administrative burdens, generate confusing market price signals, and risk overshooting the zero-deficit target. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to put the process on auto-pilot and wait for two or three years before reviewing the situation. Too much could go wrong in the meantime. An annual review therefore seems reasonable.

[4] Under this system, the MAC charge rate can be calculated as follows: MAC = (Deficit – Trigger) * Factor, where Deficit and Trigger are percentages of GDP and Factor is the “elasticity” of the MAC charge with respect the excess of the deficit over the trigger. Thus, when the trade deficit reached 3 percent of GDP, the MAC charge would be equal to (3%-1%) * 1.0 or 2%. An elasticity factor of 1.0 appears to represent a reasonable compromise between getting rapid results and excessively shocking the international trade system, but this is subject to further analysis and discussion.

[5] The relatively slow introduction of the MAC is designed to give the international monetary and trade system time to adjust to a new system. This gradual approach would moderate the initial impact on the countries and companies that have become addicted to America serving as the borrower and buyer of last resort in a world where supply often exceeds effective demand. The MAC’s purpose is sustainable balance through moderation, not revolutionary upheaval. While perhaps more exciting than gradual change, the latter could be a recipe for disaster in our highly integrated modern world.

Currency Manipulation or Currency Misalignment?

Listen to the presidential candidates talk about trade deficits and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and most will say that the TPP will hurt America because it lacks any enforceable rules to stop currency manipulation. But if America wants to reduce its trade deficits, is currency manipulation really the key problem it should be tackling?

The United States and the IMF have tried for years to keep countries from manipulating their currencies, but these efforts have generally failed. Even when successful, the results are generally temporary and America returns to running major trade deficits. Why?

This note concludes that overall currency misalignment, not the subset of misalignment caused by currency manipulation, is the primary reason for America's trade deficits.

A MAC would Reduce Private Sector Flows into the US. Isn't This a Mistake?

A reader recently noted, “I'm actually not sure I would want to counteract private capital inflows with a MAC. Isn't this a mistake? The implication of such inflows is that the U.S. is the best place to put money because there are no safe investment opportunities elsewhere.”

The answer is quite simple: The United States has no obligation to take in the world's glut of capital when doing so hurts the US immediately -- and hurts the rest of the world in the long term by reducing the dynamism of the US economy needed to drive global demand and economic growth.

The TPP, Currency Manipulation, and Currency Misalignment

Ask any American factory owner, worker, union leader, politician, or reporter why America has been suffering job-killing, factory-closing, family-impoverishing trade deficits for some forty years with no relief in sight, and most will answer, "currency manipulation by Country X." Ask anyone who questions the Administration's headlong rush to approve and implement the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) what their biggest concerns are, and most will probably note the absence of any enforceable rules to stop "currency manipulation." But is "currency manipulation" really the key problem that America should be focusing on?

This note explains why the current exclusive focus on imposing rules against currency manipulation is doomed to fail -- as it has for the past seventy years. The note concludes that, if America is to close its trade deficits – a step needed to assure full employment, higher paying jobs, expanding factory productivity, and more equitable income distribution – we will have to stop focusing on "currency manipulation"  and start focusing on fixing "currency misalignment." Furthermore, we should focus on designing and implementing a permanent way to fix currency misalignment before the TPP or any other free trade agreement is signed and put into effect.

We need to stop blaming countries like China -- to say nothing of Japan, Mexico, Germany, and perhaps a dozen other countries commonly accused of currency manipulation. We need to start implementing policies that will bring the dollar back to a fair, trade-balancing equilibrium level against all of its trading partners on average and keep it there.

Yes, at certain times in the past, certain countries such as China and Japan have pursued monetary policies that the IMF could possibly have defined as currency manipulation. However, even though anti-manipulation rules have been on the IMF’s books for about seventy years, it has never found a country guilty of manipulation.

Likewise, the United States and GATT/ WTO have had similar rules on their books for decades, but GATT/WTO has never convicted and penalized a country for currency manipulation, and the US has done so only on a handful of occasions -- with no lasting impact of any consequence.

As Einstein is credited with observing, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” After seventy years of failure using the “anti-manipulation” approach to fighting currency misalignment, it is high time we try something new.

This note suggests that the repeated efforts to put an end to trade deficits with rules designed to force currency manipulators to stop manipulating has nothing to do with insanity by is rather the inevitable result of an entirely normal human trait: It is always easier to blame someone for your own problems than to see if, just by chance, you could do something differently and solve the problem. Think beams in your own eye and specks in your brother's. The "blame game" goes back to time immemorial.
However, other reasons also help explain the failure of rules designed to fight currency manipulation:

• Currency misalignment, not currency manipulation, is the primary reason for America's trade deficits.
• Market failures are the primary cause of currency misalignment.

Currency manipulation is not the primary reason for trade deficits.

Currency manipulation as defined by the IMF has contributed in certain cases to bilateral US trade deficits. But as a cause and thus as the basis for ending these deficits, "currency manipulation" is little more than a dirty word used to blame other countries for our own international monetary policy mistakes.

Before discussing why this is so, we should agree on definitions for "currency manipulation" and "currency misalignment" -- a task made difficult by the fact that even the rules of the IMF -- the world's premier authority on currency values -- contain ambiguous terms and loopholes.

For example, the IMF rules state that members shall “avoid manipulating exchange rates or the international monetary system" without defining "the international monetary system." Does this include only "foreign exchange" in the sense of cash? Does it include securities with liquidity ranging from cash to closely held stock to real estate titles, provided that two different currencies are involved? Does massive quantitative easing, which at some point in time will almost certainly reduce the value of a country's own currency in terms of other currencies, count as manipulation? Economists hold very strong views on these definitions, but finding a well-defined consensus definition is difficult.

Furthermore, even if we agree that a given definition constitutes what the IMF really means when it talks about currency manipulation, we are faced with the problem that the IMF rules create loopholes the size of a Mack truck when it comes to deciding if the actions of a given country constitute manipulation. For example, the IMF rules contain statements such as:

"A member will only be considered to be manipulating exchange rates in order to gain an unfair competitive advantage over other members if the Fund determines both that: (A) the member is engaged in these policies for the purpose of securing fundamental exchange rate misalignment in the form of an undervalued exchange rate and (B) the purpose of securing such misalignment is to increase net exports.” 

"Any representation made by the member regarding the purpose of its policies will be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt."  (emphasis added)

Good trade lawyers can have a field day with language like this. But for the purpose of the present note, the author faces a practical problem -- to present a workable definition that is tighter than those commonly found in the daily press and that is also consistent with IMF rules. The following are proposed as appropriate for the current purpose -- to determine the relative importance of "currency manipulation" versus "currency misalignment" in explaining America's overall trade deficits:

Currency misalignment exists for a given currency whenever the issuing country experiences trade surpluses or deficits that exceed one percent of GDP and that last for at least three years./1

Currency manipulation, which is one possible cause of currency misalignment, is the purchase by an official body with assets denominated in its own domestic currency of assets denominated in a foreign currency -- provided that the intent and result is to reduce the value of the domestic currency to gain competitive advantage in international trade.

The key implications of these definitions for purposes of the following analysis, which seeks to demonstrate on the basis of empirical data that currency manipulation has never been the main reason for America's overall trade deficits, are the following:

1. Manipulation must involve purchases by official bodies because IMF rules only apply to "member governments." Consequently, transactions by the private sector cannot be regarded as "currency manipulation."
2. Manipulation must involve the purchase with domestic currency of assets denominated in a foreign currency.
3. The liquidity of assets purchased and sold is immaterial. The assets may be any combination of currency, bank accounts, derivatives, securities such as stocks and bonds, or real property.
4. When a country has earned foreign currency denominated assets by exporting real goods and services and uses these to purchase other assets denominated in a foreign currency, this is not currency manipulation because the purchase does not involve the domestic currency of the purchaser./2
5. Currency manipulation involves cross-border transactions. Transactions that take place within a country simply move around the existing domestic stock of assets denominated in various currencies.

Empirical Analysis

The US Treasury maintains the Treasury International Capital (TIC) database where America's financial inflows and outflows are recorded in considerable detail. The TIC data show flows in terms of duration (long- and short-term), country of origin, type of instrument (direct, portfolio, other), and whether the buyers and sellers of US securities are official or private. /3

The following graph clearly shows that official purchases of US securities play a very minor role compared to purchases by the foreign private sector. Private sector flows, which cannot be considered "currency manipulation" under IMF rules, have totally dominated official flows into the United States for most of the past 35 years -- which takes us back to the time when the US first started having regular trade deficits. Coincidence? I think not.

The same picture emerges from the table below, which clearly shows:

1. Official purchases in the US of dollars and dollar-denominated assets, the only source of flows that might qualify as "currency manipulation," are a very small part of total inflows.

2. Even during 1980-1995, the peak period of official inflows, the share of private sector inflows in total foreign purchases of US securities was fifty percent higher than the official sector (60% vs 40%).

3. After the period 1980-1995, the share of official inflows fell to about half its previous level, averaging about 20% of total inflows between 1995 and 2010. In other words, the private share of inflows, which cannot be defined as related to currency manipulation, was four times larger than the share that might possibly be considered as related to currency manipulation under IMF rules. To say, as some do, that America's trade deficits were all caused by official inflows, which were only one fourth the size of the private inflows during the same period, is like claiming the tail can wag the dog.

4. During the past five years, the impossibility that currency manipulation could explain the sharp rise in the dollar's value stands out even more sharply. During this period, official inflows were negative to the tune of about $7 billion, offsetting part of the private inflows during the same period, which totaled $237 billion.

5. By 2014-2015, potential currency manipulation was actually sharply negative by over $109 billion as foreign official bodies cashed in their dollar-based securities holdings in the US and took them home -- or to other more attractive locations. 

 Another useful way to test the hypothesis that normal private cross-border capital transactions, not official currency manipulation, has been the main driver of the dollar's exchange rate and thus America's trade deficits, is to add the trade-weighted exchange rate for the US dollar to the chart above so that we can directly compare official and private flows with changes in the dollar's value.

The graph below makes the story even more clear. Without question, private capital inflows track the dollar's valuation far more closely than official inflows do. In fact, official flows are little more than an inconsequential side show when you look at the big picture.

Furthermore, central banks may have perfectly legitimate portfolio allocation motives for investing part of their foreign exchange reserves in US treasuries purchased in the United States. These give at least somewhat better rates than leaving the reserves sitting as piles of cash in a vault earning nothing. Consequently, only a fraction of the small present total of official flows into the United States could ever be interpreted as making a country guilty of "currency manipulation" under IMF rules.

This quantitative analysis should make it clear that currency manipulation is a dead issue today -- and that it was probably never more than a side show compared to the massive private cross-border capital flows that have been taking place in today's highly financialized world. Private cross-border flows of foreign capital into America, not official currency manipulation, is clearly the main source of America's trade deficits, lost jobs, and closed factories.

From this we must conclude that, if America is to restore its global competitiveness, jobs, and world-class manufacturing sector, it must move the dollar back to its trade-balancing equilibrium exchange rate.

This can be accomplished only if we stop focusing so much of our attention on so-called "currency manipulation" and focus instead on moderating all foreign capital inflows in a way that keeps them consistent with a fair, competitive exchange rate for the dollar and thus with balanced trade.

Market failures are the primary cause of currency misalignment and trade deficits.

Why, you may ask, do we have to worry about private capital inflows. "Everybody" knows that, unlike official flows that are driven by the predatory instincts of self-serving governments, the free international movement of private capital is vital for global growth. Furthermore, "the market" will make certain that exchange rates adjust automatically to assure balanced growth and an optimal allocation of capital to activities with the highest returns, thus assuring the fastest possible growth.

What a nice world that would be! It might even have existed a century or two ago when capital was scarce and concentrated in money centers such as Amsterdam and London, where economic development was already well advanced, rather than being distributed to Africa, Asia, and Latin America where poor countries were crying out for the capital needed to build railroads, highways, water systems, and all the other infrastructure needed to support a prosperous, growing nation.

But that was yesterday. Since the First Oil Crisis if not before, excess capital has flooded the world, leading to one financial crisis after another -- even in developing countries. Think of the chain of crises that developed as the global cloud of excess capital drifted from country to country during the past 40-50 years -- from the OPEC countries in the 1970s through US banks to the Latin American countries and their debt crises of the 1980s, to Japan and the bubble that crashed, leading to its Lost Decade(s), and from there to the South-East Asian Crisis of 1997, the Russian crisis in the following year, the Dot-Com bubble in America throughout this period, then to the Housing Bubble of the mid-2000s, and finally the Crash of 2008.

No, private markets have not been doing a good job of allocating capital to the most productive uses. Instead, they create herd instincts that cause stampedes from one financial fantasy land to another, leaving in their wake ruined markets and ruined hopes.

The failure of global exchange rate markets to set trade-balancing exchange rates is a particularly important subset of the larger failure of financial markets -- a failure that has hit this country with special ferocity because America is home to the world's dominant reserve currency, to the world's deepest and broadest financial markets, and to the US Treasuries that serve as a safe haven when the rest of the financial world is in turmoil.

The result of America's "exorbitant privilege" is a set of exorbitantly serious debt and deficit problems. Though one of the richest countries in the world, America is also the world's largest debtor in terms of total debts owed to other countries, and it has the world's largest external deficits. For example, according to the IMF's WEO data, America's cumulative current account deficits between 2010 and 2015 exceeded the total of all such deficits for the next seven countries -- United Kingdom, Brazil, Turkey, India, Canada, Australia, and France!

Why hasn't "the market" set a trade balancing exchange rate for the US dollar since the 1970s the way it did for most of the 1800s and 1900s up to the mid-1970s? The answer is actually quite simple. When international trade was dominated by trade in real goods and services, exchange rates were set by the balance of demand and supply of such goods and services. If a country printed more domestic currency to pay for its trade deficits than the world capital markets wanted, the value of the currency would fall until balanced trade was restored. Conversely, if the country exported more than it imported, the inflow of capital from abroad to pay for the excess of exports over imports would lead to domestic inflation, and this would restore balanced trade by making exports more expensive and imports cheaper relative to the rising price of domestic goods.

Increasingly since the 1970s and 1980s, exchange rate determination has worked in exactly the opposite way. Cross-border trade in financial instruments today vastly exceeds cross-border trade in real goods and services, thus dominating the exchange rate determination process. If the dollar, for example, is in high demand because foreign investors want to exploit the advantages of America's best-in-class financial markets, to invest in the world's dominant reserve currency, or to find safe haven in America because of turmoil in other markets, the dollar's value will rise. Financial trade, not current account trade, is now what sets the exchange rate.

Unfortunately, however, there is no reason to think that an exchange rate for the dollar that balances global demand and supply for dollars and dollar-based assets will also balance America's imports and exports of real goods and services.

Consequently, whenever the demand for dollars and dollar-based assets is high, the dollar's exchange rate will be high, America's trade deficits will be high, and the American people will suffer.

Relevance to the TPP

The TPP is designed to expand significantly America's total volume of trade. As noted above, America's trade is already seriously unbalanced because of the overvalued dollar. Unless something is done to assure that the dollar moves quickly to its trade-balancing equilibrium exchange rate, America's trade deficits will grow larger. When this happens, more American jobs will be lost to foreign workers, more American factories will scale back or close entirely, family incomes will fall, and government deficits will rise as the result of a smaller tax base and the demand for larger expenditures on bailouts and stimulus plans for business, and income support for families.

Unfortunately, nothing of any significance is being done, either within the TPP or in parallel, to assure that the dollar moves to its trade-balancing equilibrium exchange rate. The note on currency values that was signed by finance officials in parallel with the TPP negotiations is basically a ruse. It is unenforceable; it carries no meaningful penalties for non-compliance; and it focuses on "currency manipulation" which, as demonstrated above, is not even the fundamental problem driving US trade deficits.

Advocates claim that the side note will provide better information and transparency regarding currency practices, but this is largely a smoke screen. Much of the information is already available in the context of IMF Article IV consultations with member countries, and the information related to currency manipulation by other countries is of little or no use since (a) currency manipulation is not the problem, and (b) even if it were, seventy years of failed attempts to bash alleged currency manipulators into compliance indicates that attacking trade deficits from the manipulation perspective is hopeless.

What America needs to do before a TPP is signed is to put in place policies that allow America to moderate all capital flows, both official and private, from all sources so that the inflows stay at levels consistent with globally balanced trade for the United States. Furthermore, the rules that are put into place should be consistent with IMF rules on capital flow management.

As demonstrated by the postings on this blog regarding a proposed Market Access Charge (MAC), the task of passing a law and implementing it could be accomplished in a matter of a few weeks or months if the necessary will and consensus were in place.

Clearly they are not. Furthermore, it is unrealistic to think that they will be until a new President has been inaugurated. We must therefore conclude that the TPP should not be implemented until the next Administration is in place and the necessary capital flow moderation policies and procedures have been established.

Despite the claims of analysts such as Petri and Plummer who urge immediate implementation, the benefits of the TPP for America are so small and the risks are so high that there is absolutely no reason to rush.

Instead, we need to use the time between now and early 2017 to build the understanding among economists, national policy makers, the media, and the public at large about the importance of establishing monetary policies appropriate to the 21st century before the TPP is implemented.

Now is the time to take the time to get the TPP right.

America Needs a Competitive Dollar - Now!

------------------------------------------------------------

Notes

1/ Appropriate adjustments could be made in this rule of thumb to deal with more severe deficits. For example, a trade deficit would be considered "actionable" if it exceeded two percent of GDP for two years, or three percent for one year.

2/ This point means that much of China's purchase of US treasuries and other US securities over the past decade was asset allocation, not currency manipulation. Given that the US dollar is the primary currency of transaction and settlement in trade between the US and China (and with the rest of the world), China earned the dollars that it used to purchase US securities through net exports. In fact, with its export surpluses, China earned dollars equal to nearly three-quarters of its total purchases of dollar-based U.S. assets between 1997 and 2014. For the most part, the Chinese simply turned dollars earned in cash into dollar securities rather than buying dollars with yuan. This is asset allocation, not currency manipulation.

3/   Because of confidentiality problems, the BEA data on foreign investment inflows presented here cover only Portfolio Investments (purchases of US securities) and Other Investments (changes in balances held by foreigners in the US banking system). Foreign direct investment into the United States, broken down by official and private flows, is not available on a directly comparable basis. However, it is possible to construct a parallel series showing investment by "Government and government-related entities" from data published in the September issue each year of the BEA's Survey of Current Business (SCB).

The official flows reported in the SCB averaged only 4 percent of total FDI inflows over the past eight years, the remaining 96 percent being from foreign private sector entities. Since total FDI inflows averaged only 20 percent of total foreign investment inflows in recent years, official incoming FDI represents only 0.8 percent of the total foreign investment inflows.

Adding the tiny share of official foreign direct investments to the already small share of official portfolio and other investment inflows further reduces the share of official FDI in total FDI inflows. This leaves private net investment inflows even more dominant than indicated above.

Conclusion: Even if 100 percent of all three types of official foreign investment inflows were found to be motivated by the intent to manipulate the US dollar -- an unthinkable situation, official currency manipulation as defined by the IMF would still be insignificant as a cause of the US dollar's overall misalignment and overvaluation.