Imagine a young child asks you to play with them. They say they have an invisible unicorn in their room. One response is to play along—perhaps you might suggest that you have an invisible penguin, and ask if it could play with the unicorn.
The US government has recently become obsessed with “bilateral trade deficits”, which is a nonsensical concept to most economists. (What’s your trade deficit with Starbucks?) But based on a recent article in the Financial Times, the Europeans seem to be willing to play along:
Brussels wants to increase purchases of US goods by €50bn to address the “problem” in the trade relationship, the EU’s top negotiator has said, adding that the bloc is making “certain progress” towards striking a deal. . . .
Šefčovič said the key argument he was making to US trade representative Jamieson Greer and commerce secretary Howard Lutnick was taking account of American services exports to the EU, which would bring the overall trade deficit with Europe to only about €50bn.
That could be closed rapidly with deals to purchase more US gas and agricultural products, he said.
“If what we are looking at as a problem in the deficit is €50bn, I believe that we can really . . . solve this problem very quickly through LNG purchases, through some agricultural products like soyabeans, or other areas,” Sefcovic said.
Of course, the European purchase of an additional $50 billion worth of soybeans and natural gas would do almost nothing to reduce the overall US trade deficit, but it would reduce the US bilateral trade deficit with Europe (while enlarging the deficit by an equal amount with other countries.) This is due to the fact that commodities are fungible, or easily interchangeable.
Suppose that Europe had previous been purchasing soybeans from Brazil and natural gas from Qatar. And suppose that East Asian countries had been buying soybeans and natural gas from the US. Commodity trade could be rerouted such that Europe now bought its soybeans and natural gas from the US, while Brazilian soybeans and Qatari gas was rerouted to East Asia. Nothing would change except that transportation costs would be a bit higher, making the world a bit poorer.
In the kabuki theatre of American politics this might be viewed as a “big win”. After all, we now live in an imaginary world where nothing is real. A world where the administration saved 258,000,000 American lives (probably including your life), just in the past three months. That’s 3/4th of the US population.
The Europeans seem to have realized that if America wishes to play in this imaginary world, their best strategy is to play along, to humor the administration by pretending that bilateral trade deficits are real.
PS. I searched for the 1932 Betty Boop cartoon entitled “Crazy Town”, but the copies on the internet are of very low quality. I saw these at the theatre when I was young, and for my money they are the best cartoons ever. (Especially the surrealistic pre-code ones.) These films are still under copyright, presumably because that will encourage “innovation”. (Yes, I’m being sarcastic.)
Here’s a unicorn:
READER COMMENTS
Andrew_FL
May 2 2025 at 2:27pm
I think “irrelevant” is the more appropriate appellation, rather than “nonsensical”.
Rajat
May 2 2025 at 9:31pm
If it’s any consolation, Stalker, Solaris, Andrei Rublev and My Dinner with Andre are all available free on YouTube.
steve
May 2 2025 at 9:34pm
Betty Boop cartoons were excellent. The TLA theater in Philly used to run them as part of their alternative film series. However, for my money I will still take the classic Bugs Bunny cartoons. Trying to decide at what age to introduce them to the grandkids as they are overly focused on the Disney princess movies. I did get them to watch Fantasia which they loved so I think that is a good start.
BTW, I missed that Bondi quote. She may be dumb as a box of rocks but at least she knows how to suck up to Trump.
Steve
Scott Sumner
May 3 2025 at 11:27am
“I missed that Bondi quote”
I recall an earlier time when this sort of quote would get wide coverage in the press. Today, there’s a such a firehouse of misinformation that people have stopped paying attention.
nobody.really
May 3 2025 at 8:52am
Eh.
I understand the Trump Administration wants to reduce the US trade deficit and/or raise revenues via tariffs. The Administration has put different tariffs on different partners, and invited them to negotiate.
So perhaps the result of these various machinations is that Europe buys a bit more of some commodities from the US and reduces the tariffs between them, and Brazil and Qatar buy less, but retain the tariffs placed on them. Under this scenario, the US would not achieve the goal of reducing its trade deficit, but would achieve the goal of increasing tariff revenues on goods from Brazil and Qatar. And the negotiations can be seen as a Coasian exercise to determine which parties would more optimally bear the burden of buying more US commodities (perhaps with higher transportation costs), and which should bear the burden of facing higher US tariffs.
Scott Sumner
May 3 2025 at 11:30am
“And the negotiations can be seen”
Aren’t you assuming that there is some sort of intelligence guiding this process. Evidence?
nobody.really
May 3 2025 at 10:14pm
I get what you mean: It’s hard to find a rationale underlying the Trump position, so it’s hard to see the relevant trade-offs that Trump would make.
But I’m not sure that’s the most salient point. I’m only assuming that Brazil, Europe, and Qatar will pursue their own self-interests. They might all conclude that they’d be better off buying more US natural gas and soybeans and getting Trump to cut their tariffs–but then, the price of US gas and beans will grow relative to the world market rate. At some point, Brazil, Europe, or Qatar may conclude that the premium they’re paying for these commodities exceeds the benefits they derive from reduced US tariffs, and one or more of them may simply elect to buy commodities at the world price and endure the high US tariffs. In short, the only intelligence I’m counting on is the self-interest of the Brazil, Europe, and Qatar.