Defisit Perdagangan AS: Sejauh Mana Ia Penting?

Aliran Ekonomi

Ringkasan:

Presiden Trump telah menjadikan pengurangan defisit perdagangan AS sebagai keutamaan, tetapi ahli ekonomi tidak bersetuju tentang betapa pentingnya mereka dan apa yang perlu dilakukan terhadap mereka.

Apakah defisit perdagangan?

Defisit perdagangan berlaku apabila sesebuah negara mengimport lebih banyak daripada mengeksport. Sebagai contoh, pada tahun 2024 Amerika Syarikat mengeksport hampir $3.2 trilion dalam barangan dan perkhidmatan ke dunia, manakala ia mengimport $4.1 trilion, meninggalkan defisit perdagangan keseluruhan lebih daripada $900 bilion. Defisit dalam barangan, pada $1.2 trilion, adalah lebih tinggi daripada jumlah defisit, kerana sebahagian daripada defisit barangan diimbangi oleh lebihan dalam perdagangan perkhidmatan. Perkhidmatan, seperti pelancongan, harta intelek dan kewangan, membentuk kira-kira satu pertiga daripada eksport, manakala barangan utama yang dieksport termasuk pesawat, petroleum ditapis dan bahan api lain serta peralatan pengangkutan. Sementara itu, import dikuasai oleh barang modal, seperti komputer dan peralatan telekom; barangan pengguna, seperti pakaian, peranti elektronik dan kereta; dan minyak mentah.

Adalah penting untuk membezakan defisit perdagangan keseluruhan atau global sesebuah negara daripada defisit perdagangan dua halanya. Amerika Syarikat mempunyai kedua-dua defisit keseluruhan yang besar dalam perdagangannya dengan seluruh dunia dan defisit dua hala yang besar dengan beberapa negara individu. Tetapi adalah mungkin bagi sesebuah negara untuk mengalami defisit dua hala dengan negara tertentu, lebihan dengan negara lain, dan keseimbangan dalam perdagangan keseluruhannya dengan dunia. Dalam erti kata lain, walaupun Amerika Syarikat "memperbaiki" keseluruhan defisit perdagangannya, ia boleh-dan berkemungkinan-mengalami defisit dua hala dengan beberapa negara. (Satu cara untuk memikirkan perkara ini ialah dengan mempertimbangkan keadaan kewangan pengguna individu, yang tidak boleh berbelanja tidak lebih daripada pendapatan mereka tetapi masih mempunyai "defisit dua hala" dengan penjual runcit atau tukang gunting rambut mereka dan "lebihan dua hala" dengan majikan mereka.)

Apakah yang menyebabkan defisit perdagangan keseluruhan negara?

Punca asas defisit perdagangan keseluruhan negara ialah ketidakseimbangan antara kadar simpanan dan pelaburannya. Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh ahli ekonomi, sebab defisit boleh disimpulkan kepada Amerika Syarikat secara keseluruhan membelanjakan lebih banyak wang daripada yang diperolehinya. Perbelanjaan tambahan itu harus, mengikut definisi, pergi ke arah barangan dan perkhidmatan asing. Pembiayaan perbelanjaan itu berlaku dalam bentuk sama ada meminjam daripada pemberi pinjaman asing atau pelaburan asing dalam aset dan perniagaan AS.

Ahli ekonomi umumnya melihat faktor-faktor ini lebih penting daripada dasar perdagangan dalam menentukan defisit keseluruhan. Ini kerana menjadikannya lebih mudah atau lebih sukar untuk berdagang dengan negara tertentu cenderung mengalihkan defisit perdagangan kepada rakan dagangan lain. Oleh itu, ahli ekonomi memberi amaran supaya tidak mencampurkan defisit perdagangan dua hala, yang mencerminkan keadaan tertentu hubungan perdagangan dengan negara tertentu, dengan defisit perdagangan keseluruhan, yang mencerminkan kuasa asas dalam ekonomi.

Bagaimanakah defisit perdagangan AS berubah sejak beberapa dekad kebelakangan ini?

Defisit perdagangan AS keseluruhan $918.4 bilion hari ini, mewakili kira-kira 3.1 peratus daripada keluaran dalam negara kasar (KDNK), turun daripada puncak 2022 lebih daripada $944 bilion, yang pada masa itu adalah sekitar 3.7 peratus daripada KDNK. Defisit telah purata $594 bilion sejak 2000, jauh lebih tinggi daripada dekad sebelumnya, apabila ia menyumbang jauh di bawah 2 peratus daripada KDNK. Amerika Syarikat mengalami sama ada lebihan atau defisit kecil sepanjang 1960-an dan 1970-an, selepas itu defisit yang besar dibuka pada 1980-an dan terus berkembang melalui 1990-an dan 2000-an.

Ketidakseimbangan perdagangan dua hala AS yang terbesar setakat ini adalah dengan China. Amerika Syarikat mengalami defisit barangan $295 bilion dengan China pada 2024 (sebahagiannya diimbangi oleh lebihan perkhidmatan AS dengan China sebanyak $32 bilion). Penyumbang terbesar seterusnya kepada defisit barangan, pada $235 bilion, ialah Kesatuan Eropah, diikuti Mexico pada $172 bilion, Vietnam pada $123 bilion, dan Taiwan pada $73.9 bilion.

Defisit Perdagangan AS: Sejauh Mana Ia Penting?_1

Defisit perdagangan dengan China berkembang secara mendadak bermula pada awal 2000-an daripada purata $34 bilion pada 1990-an. Sesetengah ahli ekonomi merujuk kepada ini sebagai "Kejutan China" dan mengaitkannya dengan pertumbuhan pesat yang tidak dijangka dalam eksport barangan perkilangan China ke Amerika Syarikat pada akhir 1990-an dan awal 2000-an. Ini berlaku apabila Beijing melakukan pembaharuan ekonomi yang mendalam dan melaksanakan dasar untuk mensubsidi pengeluaran, mempercepatkan perindustrian dan meningkatkan eksport. Ahli ekonomi juga mencatatkan pecutan pertumbuhan eksport China selepas kemasukan negara ke dalam Pertubuhan Perdagangan Dunia (WTO) pada 2001.

Baru-baru ini, China telah mengalami satu lagi lonjakan eksport, yang membawa kepada apa yang disebut oleh rakan kanan CFR, Brad W. Setser sebagai "Kejutan China Kedua." Gelombang besar kedua eksport China ini sebahagiannya disebabkan oleh peningkatan besar dalam permintaan global untuk barangan akibat pandemik COVID-19, penurunan permintaan domestik di China dan peningkatan daya saing China dalam pasaran dunia disebabkan oleh pelaburan strategik kerajaan dalam sektor pertumbuhan tinggi (cth, semikonduktor, tenaga bersih, kenderaan elektrik).

Faktor-faktor ini membantu menjelaskan sumbangan China kepada keseluruhan defisit perdagangan AS, serta penumpuan defisit dalam sektor pembuatan. Pekerjaan pembuatan AS menurun daripada 31 peratus pekerjaan sektor swasta pada 1970 kepada 9.7 peratus pada 2023, kejatuhan yang dikatakan oleh ahli ekonomi Kyle Handley dipercepatkan oleh persaingan China. Bagaimanapun, beliau bersetuju dengan ramai ahli ekonomi bahawa sebahagian besar pengurangan buruh dalam sektor pembuatan boleh dikaitkan dengan automasi, peningkatan produktiviti, dan peralihan permintaan daripada barangan kepada perkhidmatan.

Mengapakah sesetengah pembuat dasar bimbang tentang defisit perdagangan?

Presiden Trump, yang berkempen untuk penggal kedua bagi menamatkan ketidakseimbangan perdagangan, berhujah bahawa defisit perdagangan mengancam keselamatan ekonomi dan negara AS dan menyalahkan perjanjian perdagangan "tidak adil dan tidak seimbang" dengan negara seperti Kanada, China, dan Mexico kerana menyebabkan defisit keseluruhan yang semakin meningkat.

Peter Navarro, senior counselor to the president for trade and manufacturing, believes that the overall trade deficit threatens national security, in that the United States depends on foreign debt and foreign investment to finance it. Navarro has referred to the trade deficit as “a brake and bridle on both GDP growth and real wages in the American economy while encumbering the U.S. with significant foreign debt.”

In his executive order imposing reciprocal tariffs, President Trump cited large and persistent goods deficits as evidence of the lack of reciprocity in bilateral trade relationships. Trump blamed the deficits for hollowing the U.S. manufacturing base, hindering scaling of U.S. advanced manufacturing, threatening critical supply chains, and reducing the U.S. defense-industrial base to dependence on foreign adversaries.

Trump's team calculated reciprocal tariffs in addition to the standard 10 percent for every country by taking their bilateral trade deficit in goods as a share of their total exports to the United States and dividing by two. CFR President Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, explains that the Trump administration's approach to calculating reciprocal tariff rates assumes that the bilateral trade deficit is “a catch-all quantitative measure of unfair trade practices, not a reflection of comparative advantage.”

Some Democratic lawmakers, labor groups, and manufacturers also criticize trade deficits on the grounds that some foreign countries—especially China—have used unfair practices such as currency manipulation, wage suppression, and government subsidies to boost their exports, while blocking U.S. imports. Brookings researchers Joshua P. Meltzer and Margaret M. Pearson identify China's overcapacity as “linked to China's increasingly mercantilist approach to trade” and suggest the United States should “rebuild a global rules-based trading system” to address China's practices, while also acknowledging the importance of a continued U.S.-China trade relationship.

The deficit's concentration in the manufacturing sector has heightened concerns among some economists over job losses and their repercussions in local communities. Research by the Economic Policy Institute suggests that the surge in Chinese imports lowered wages for non-college-educated workers and cost the United States 3.7 million jobs from 2001–2018. One study from Stanford University found that the China Shock accounted for 59.3 percent of all U.S. manufacturing job losses over a similar period (2001–2019).

Some economists worry about the consequences of large and persistent imbalances. In 2017, the Peterson Institute's Joseph Gagnon warned that the debt necessary to finance the overall trade deficit was heading toward unsustainable levels. Former Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke and Jared Bernstein, chair of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Biden, have argued that the large inflows of foreign capital that accompany trade deficits can lead to financial bubbles and could have contributed to the U.S. housing crash that began in 2006. Jeff Ferry from the Coalition for a Prosperous America notes that a growing trade deficit has been associated with a weak economy, as in the early 2000s, which he says is evidence of the potential for a large trade deficit to drain demand from the domestic economy and slow growth when the economy is performing under its potential.

Some economists worry about the consequences of large and persistent imbalances. The Peterson Institute's Gagnon warns that the debt necessary to finance the deficit is heading toward unsustainable levels. Former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and Jared Bernstein, an economic advisor to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, have argued that the large inflows of foreign capital that accompany trade deficits can lead to financial bubbles and may have contributed to the U.S. housing crash that began in 2006. Others note that a growing deficit has been associated with a weak economy, as in the early 2000s, which they say is evidence of the potential for a large deficit to drain demand from the domestic economy and slow growth when the economy is performing under its potential.

What are the arguments against focusing on the deficit?

Many economists say the overall trade deficit is not itself a problem for the U.S. economy. That's because a larger trade deficit can be the result of a stronger economy, as consumers spend and import more while higher interest rates make foreign investors more eager to place their money in the United States.

CFR Fellow Inu Manak challenges the Trump administration's assertion that “trade deficits mean you lose, and surpluses mean you win.” She says that Trump's narrow focus on trade in goods, which disregards the services surplus, is particularly unhelpful.

“It is false to suggest that the trade deficit is somehow reflective of trade barriers, and the administration's cherry-picking of the data (which excludes services where the United States has a surplus) further points to the arbitrary nature of its claims,” Manak wrote, while questioning the legal basis of Trump's tariff policies.

Some economists argue that the singular role of the U.S. economy in providing liquidity to the global economy and driving demand around the world makes a U.S. trade deficit important to global economic stability. The dollar's role as the global reserve currency and primary tool for global transactions means that many other countries rely on holding dollar reserves, creating massive demand for U.S. financial assets. This means that the United States pays little for its foreign borrowing, allowing it to finance its high consumption at low cost, which boosts global demand.

Other economists warn that increasing trade restrictions in the interest of moving toward U.S. trade surpluses could lead to lower global growth, inflation, and more economic instability among U.S. trade partners. CFR's Benn Steil and Elisabeth Harding also flag the potential reduction in real GDP growth due to protectionist trade policies.

Many economists worry that too much focus on trade deficits could lead to a revival of protectionism and a new global trade war that would make everyone worse off, especially in an era of supply chains that cross many borders. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute, pushes back against the idea that job losses in manufacturing are connected to the trade deficit and further challenges the argument that tariffs will improve the trade balance or create manufacturing jobs.

Stephen J. Rose of the Center for Strategic and International Studies says government promises that restrictions on imports from China or elsewhere will revive manufacturing ignore the fact that technological progress plays a much larger role in deindustrialization than does trade. In fact, the U.S. economy began shifting away from manufacturing long before the proliferation of trade agreements in the 1990s, Rose explained.

Instead, the Peterson Institute's Mary Lovely says it is better to recognize that trade deficits are neither all good or all bad but rather involve trade-offs: the U.S. economy benefits from foreign goods and investment even as a high deficit displaces some workers and adds to the national debt.

What policy options have been proposed to reduce trade deficits?

Imposing high tariffs. President Trump has repeatedly promised to reduce trade deficits by imposing high tariffs on foreign trading partners, a key pillar of his economic platform. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says using broad-based tariffs will help create “reciprocity, fairness, and respect.” Some economists say negotiating better access to the Chinese market for U.S. exporters could help reduce the bilateral deficit but warn that additional tariffs will make China less likely to grant extended access to U.S. firms.

In contrast to the Trump administration's approach, Gagnon says that data show “tariffs have little direct impact on deficits.” He says higher tariffs lead to both reduced imports and exports, as well as less total income, noting that tariffs “ultimately lead to less business innovation, slower productivity growth, and lower household living standards.”

Reducing the fiscal deficit. As an alternative to tariffs, Gagnon argues for using fiscal and exchange rate policy to reduce the trade deficit. He emphasizes “reducing the fiscal deficit and pushing down the overvalued dollar,” arguing that a weaker dollar would likely boost U.S. exports.

Boosting U.S. exports. CFR Senior Vice President and Director of Studies Shannon O'Neil emphasizes the importance of boosting U.S. exports to reduce deficits, return higher-paying jobs, and increase innovation. She argues that pulling back from trade agreements and using sweeping tariffs on imports undercut the potential for U.S. exporters to succeed because they are excluded from access to cheaper inputs. Instead of focusing on reducing imports through protectionist policies, a more effective strategy could be to increase U.S. exports.

Amending U.S. tax law. Alexander Raskolnikov, Wilbur H. Friedman professor of tax law at Columbia Law School, and CFR's Steil write that one way to address the deficit with China is by amending American tax law.

Current U.S. tax law treats foreign investors in the United States, including Chinese investors, more favorably than domestic investors. The resulting influx of foreign capital contributes to the trade deficit. Raskolnikov and Steil write: “If the U.S. tax subsidy for the import of foreign capital were eliminated, Chinese investors would have less motivation to outbid Americans for U.S. assets and, by extension, less incentive to dump goods in this country in return for dollars.”

Though it would not be a silver bullet, amending U.S. tax law and eliminating subsidies for foreign portfolio investment could moderately reduce the deficit without the downsides associated with tariffs and other protectionist measures.

CFR's Setser argues that the United States should reform its corporate tax code to limit offshoring and disincentivize profit shifting, especially in the pharmaceutical industry. Internationally, the United States and its allies should create subsidy sharing agreements in key sectors (e.g. electric vehicles and steel), expanding the market share for both U.S. and allies' firms while lowering costs.

Mendesak pembaharuan di negara lebihan. Pembaharuan ekonomi di negara-negara lebihan juga boleh membantu. Gagnon dan C. Fred Bergsten dari Institut Peterson berhujah bahawa Amerika Syarikat harus menekan negara yang menggunakan pembelian rizab asing untuk memanipulasi kadar pertukaran mereka dengan meminta kerajaan AS membeli balas mata wang asing yang memanipulasi negara. Setser CFR mengatakan bahawa pembuat dasar harus menekan China dan negara Asia lain untuk menggubal dasar untuk meningkatkan penggunaan domestik mereka.

Mengurangkan perbelanjaan domestik AS dan meningkatkan kadar simpanan. Dalam arena dasar domestik, meningkatkan kadar simpanan AS juga boleh menurunkan defisit perdagangan. Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Tabung Kewangan Antarabangsa dan yang lain, salah satu cara paling langsung untuk melakukannya ialah mengurangkan defisit bajet kerajaan. Pada awal penggal kedua, Trump menubuhkan Jabatan Kecekapan Kerajaan (DOGE) kononnya untuk mengurangkan perbelanjaan persekutuan dan menurunkan defisit bajet. Walaupun terdapat persetujuan meluas bahawa kecekapan boleh didapati dalam perbelanjaan untuk operasi kerajaan, realiti bahawa kebanyakan perbelanjaan persekutuan pergi ke pertahanan, kelayakan, dan faedah ke atas hutang membuat banyak persoalan sama ada usaha seperti DOGE akan mengurangkan defisit belanjawan keseluruhan.

Sumber: CFR

Untuk kekal dikemas kini tentang semua acara ekonomi hari ini, sila lihat kalendar ekonomi kami

Amaran Risiko dan Penafian Pelaburan

Anda memahami dan mengakui bahawa terdapat tahap risiko yang tinggi yang terlibat dalam perdagangan dengan strategi. Mengikuti mana-mana strategi atau metodologi pelaburan adalah potensi kerugian. Kandungan di tapak disediakan oleh penyumbang dan penganalisis kami untuk tujuan maklumat sahaja. Anda sendiri bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya untuk menentukan sama ada mana-mana aset dagangan, atau sekuriti, atau strategi, atau mana-mana produk lain sesuai untuk anda berdasarkan objektif pelaburan dan situasi kewangan anda.