Microeconomics for MBAs - Chapter 17 ppt

CHAPTER 17 International Trade and Finance It can be of no consequence to America, whether the commodities she obtains in return for her own,, cost Europeans much, or little labor; all she is interested in, is that they shall cost her less labor by purchasing than by manufacturing them herself. David Ricardo ations never really trade; people do. This simple point is important, for international trade allows us to approach international trade as an extension of models already developed, rather than a completely new topic. Earlier discussion focused on the local or national marketplace. In this chapter, our marketplace will be the world. We divide our discussion of international economics into its major subdivisions, international trade (mainly dealing with the exchange of real goods and services across national boundaries and their terms of trade) and international finance (mainly dealing with the exchange of national currencies and their exchange rates). INTERNATIONAL TRADE Of course, there are differences between international and domestic trade—enough to make international economics an important subdiscipline of the profession. Some differences are obvious, like the many different national currencies, cultures, institutions, laws, languages, artificial barriers (tariffs, quotas, embargoes, health regulations), and countercyclical domestic policies, involved in international exchange. Others go largely unrecognized. An intangible but significant factor is the difference in people’s attitudes toward domestic and international trade—call international trade nationalism. As Abraham Lincoln is supposed to have said, “Domestic trade is among us; international trade is between us and them.” Yet people all over the world trade with each other for the same reason: They stand to gain from the transaction in spite of the politics. There is much greater immobility of resources than commodities between nations. International trade is the substitute for the international movement of human and property resources, especially people. Understanding that trade is between people, not nations, is important for another reason. If we focus solely on gains from trade to nations taken as unified political entities, we may overlook the distributional effects of international commerce—the gains and losses to individuals. As we will see, while international trade increases a nation’s total income, international trade reduces some individual’s incomes and increases others’. To evaluate objections to free trade among nations in proper perspective, we must recognize these hidden gains and losses. N Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 2 Objections to free trade can be explained easily in terms of market theory. A major principle of economic theory is that each individual competitor has a vested interest in reducing competition. Competition forces product prices down and spurs product development and, in the long run, restricts business profits to only the risk- adjusted profit opportunities available elsewhere. Thus it is natural for domestic firms to seek protection from their foreign competitors—but protection only increases the prices consumers must pay. Carried to an extreme, protection based on the narrow interests of particular sectors of the economy can reduce everyone’s income. On this basis rests the case for free international trade. After examining the advantages of international trade from a purely national perspective, we will look at the distributional, or individual, effects. The chapter closes with a discussion of the pros and cons of protectionism. Collective Gains from Trade Most of the gains from trade result from allocating resources in the most efficient manner and from the reduction in the social opportunity cost—each geographic area produces and exchanges those things for which it is best suited to produce. With nations selling those things with the lowest opportunity costs, joint output is maximized and consumption opportunities are enhanced. Adam Smith told us more than two hundred years ago about the nature of the gains from trade: It is a maxim of every prudent master, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.” 1 Trade also allows a greater variety and wider choice of available products. The gains from it are clearest when there is no domestic substitute for an imported good. For example, the United States does not have any known reserves of chromium, manganese, or tin. For those basic resources, which are widely used in manufacturing, American firms must rely on foreign suppliers. The gains from trade are also clear for goods that are very costly or difficult to produce in the United States. For example, cocoa and coffee can be raised in the United States, but only in a greenhouse. Obviously it is less costly to import coffee in exchange for some other good, like wheat, for which the United States climate is better suited. Foreign competition also offers benefits to the American consumer. By challenging the market power of domestic firms, foreign producers who market their goods in the United States reduce product prices and expand domestic consumption. Foreign competition also increases the variety of goods available. Without competition from the twenty or more foreign automobile producers who sell in the American market, the three U.S. automakers would each get a much larger percentage of the market. They would be loess hesitant to raise their prices if consumers had fewer alternative sources of supply. Collusion among major manufacturers would also be much more likely without the presence of foreign competitors. International trade also promotes specialization, whose benefits are fairly clear. By concentrating on producing a small number of goods and selling to the world market, a nation can reap the benefits of greater efficiency and economies of scale. Resource 1 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Random House, Modern Library edition, 1937), p. 422. Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 3 savings that are not initially obvious may be gained. Indeed, after considering the following example, some readers may doubt that international trade can be mutually beneficial. Consider a world in which only two nations, the United States and Japan, produce only two goods, textiles and beef. Assume that the United States produces both textile and beef more efficiently than Japan. That is, with the same resources, the United States can produce more beef and more textiles than Japan can. It has an absolute advantage in the production of both goods. An absolute advantage in production is the capacity to produce more units of output than a competitor can for any given level of resource use. A comparative advantage in production or cost is the relative advantage based on comparative ratios such that either the absolute advantage is greatest or the absolute disadvantage is smallest. Comparative advantage is more important for trade than absolute advantage. As long as the relative productivities or costs differ between individuals, regions, or nations, the participants can engage in mutually beneficial trade. Let’s see how these differences work out for people. Suppose that Lisa is worth $100 an hour in market work and only $10 an hour in home or household work. Her husband Gary is worth $8 an hour in the market and $4 in the home. Lisa has an absolute advantage in both tasks, but a comparative advantage in market work. She is ten times more productive in the market than at home; he is only twice as productive. Her comparative advantage (largest advantage is in the market; his comparative advantage (smallest disadvantage) is in the home. She should work in the market; and he should work at home. Their combined productivity would be $104 per hour (her $100 market rate plus his $4 home rate). If instead Gary worked in the market and Lisa worked at home, their combined productivity would be $18 (his $8 market rate plus her $10 home rate). They would be $86 (equal to $104 $18) better off by utilizing their comparative advantage, with Lisa working in the market, where her comparative advantage lies (her greatest absolute advantage, $92 over his) and Gary working at home, where his comparative advantage lies (his absolute disadvantage is smallest, $6 less than hers). Table 17.1 shows these absolute and comparative differences for nations. With the same labor, capital, or other resources, the United States can produce thirty units of textiles; Japan can produce twenty-five. If the same resources are applied to beef production, the United States still outproduces Japan, by ninety units to twenty-five. Under such conditions, one might think that trade with Japan could not possibly benefit the United States. The relevant question is not how efficient the United States is in absolute terms, however, but whether the people of the United States can make a better deal by trading with Japan than they can make by trading among themselves. This is determined by examining the comparative advantage, or the ratios of advantage or differences in relative efficiencies. A nation has a comparative advantage where (1) its absolute advantage is greatest or (2) its absolute disadvantage is smallest. Generally, a nation will have a comparative advantage in those products that require in their production a large proportion of factors that are relatively abundant and inexpensive in that nation and a comparative disadvantage in those productions that are relatively scarce and expensive in that nation. It is a technological fact that different products generally require in their production different proportions of the factors. Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 4 TABLE 17.1 Comparative Cost Advantages, Beef and Textiles, United States and Japan Maximum Units of Textiles (Zero Beef Units) Maximum Units of Beef (Zero Textile Units) Domestic Cost Ratios In Each Nation Mutually Beneficial Trade Ratio, Both Nations United States Japan 30 25 90 25 1 textile costs 3 beef 1 textile costs 1 beef 1 textile trades for 2 beef To determine which is the better deal, we must compare the costs of production. We know that there is an uneven distribution of economic resources among nations. This produces differences in productive capacities based on these differences in relative factor endowments. If each nation produces and trades the products in which it has a comparative cost advantage, trade can raise both their incomes. Remember that a comparative advantage is the capacity to produce a product at a lower cost than a competitor, in terms of the goods that must be given up. The United States may have an absolute advantage in the production of both beef and textiles, but it may have a comparative advantage only in the production of beef. In other words, the United States must forgo fewer units of textiles to obtain a unit of beef than Japan. Although a single nation could theoretically have an absolute advantage in all commodities, it could not have a comparative advantage in all commodities. With two nations and two commodities, if a nation has a comparative advantage in one commodity it must have a comparative disadvantage in the other commodity. Having a comparative advantage in beef necessarily means the United States cannot have a comparative advantage in textiles—a point that will become clear shortly. In a sense, the United States trades with itself every time it producers either beef or textiles. If it produces beef, it incurs an opportunity cost; it gives up some of the textiles it could have produced. If it produces textiles, it gives up some beef. In Table 17.1, every time the United States produces one unit of textiles, it gives up three units of beef. (It can produce either thirty units of textiles or ninety of beef—a ratio of one to three.) Thus the United States can benefit by trading beef for textile if it can give up fewer than three units of beef for each unit of textiles it gets from Japan. Japan, on the other hand, gives up an advantage of one unit of beef for each unit of textiles it produces. If Japan can get more than one unit of beef for each unit of textiles it trades, it too can gain by trading. In short, if the trade ratio is greater than one unit of beef for one unit of textiles but less than three units of beef for one unit of textiles, trade will benefit both countries. The United States will gain because it has to give up fewer units of beef—two, perhaps, instead of three—than if tried to produce the textiles Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 5 itself. It can produce three units of beef, trade two of them for a textile unit, and have one extra beef unit left over—or it can trade all three units of beef for one and one-half units of textiles. Japan can produce one unit of textiles and trade it for two units of beef, gaining one textile unit in the process. Both nations can gain from such a trade because each is specializing in the production of a good for which it has a comparative opportunity cost advantage. 2 Even though the United States has an absolute cost advantage in both products, Japan has a comparative advantage in textiles. One unit of textiles costs Japan one unit of beef; the same unit of textiles costs the United States three units of beef. Similarly, the United States has a comparative cost advantage in the production of beef. One unit of beef costs the United States only one-third unit of textiles; it costs Japan a whole unit. If each country specializes in the commodities for which it has a comparative cost advantage, the two nations can save resources for use in further production. TABLE 17.2 Mutual Gains from Trade in Beef and Textiles, United States and Japan United States Japan Total, U.S. and Japan Production and consumption levels before international trade 15 textiles 45 beef 3 textiles 22 beef 18 textiles 67 beef Production levels in anticipation of international trade (complete specialization assumed) 0 textiles 90 beef 25 textiles 0 beef 25 textiles 90 beef At an exchange ratio of 2 beef for 1 textile, United States and Japan agree to trade 40 beef for 20 textiles. Consumption levels after international trade 20 textiles 50 beef 5 textiles 40 beef 25 textiles 90 beef Increased consumption (before-trade consumption levels subtracted) 5 textiles 5 beef 2 textiles 18 beef 7 textiles 23 beef Table 17.2 shows the gains in production each nation can realize under such an arrangement. Before trade, the United States produces 15 units of textiles and 45 of beef; Japan produces 3 units of textiles and 22 of beef. Total production is therefore 18 units of textiles and 67 units of beef. With trade, the United States produces 90 units of beef 2 Specialization in production for the United States and Japan will likely be partial with increasing marginal production costs. With constant-cost or decreasing-cost, the specialization of production may be complete. Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 6 and Japan produces 25 units of textiles. At an international trade ratio of 1 unit of textiles to 2 units of beef, suppose the two nations agree to trade 40 units of beef for 20 units of textiles. The United States gets more beef—50 units as opposed to 45—and more textiles—20 units as opposed to 15. Japan also gets more of both commodities. Through specialization, total world production has risen from 18 to 25 units of textiles and from 67 to 90 units of beef. Both nations can now consume more of both commodities. In a very important sense, the world’s aggregate real income has increased. The same gain in aggregate welfare is shown graphically in Figure 17.1. On the left side of the figure, the U.S. production possibilities curve extends from 30 units of textiles on the horizontal axis to 90 units of beef on the vertical axis. Japan’s production capability is shown on the right. Without trade, the United States chooses to produce at point a, 15 textiles units and 45 beef units. At an exchange ratio of 2 beef units for one textile unit, the United States can move up and to the left on its production possibilities curve. At the extreme, it will produce at point b, 90 units of beef and no textiles. It can trade along the outer line, exchanging 40 beef units for 20 textile units (point c). Through trade, the United States realizes a gain in aggregate welfare represented by the distance FIGURE 17.1 Production Gains from International Trade The United States can produce any combination of beef and textiles along its production possibilities curve B 1 T 1 (left panel). Without trade, it will choose to produce at point a, 45 units of beef and 15 units of textiles. If given the opportunity to trade two units of beef for one unit of textiles, however, the United States will specialize completely in beef (point b) and trade beef for textiles along the darkened line. Through trade, the United States moves from a to c, exporting 40 units of beef (90 units produced minus 50 consumed) and importing 20 units of textiles. In the process the nation increases its consumption of both beef and textiles, from 45 units of beef and 15 units of textiles to 50 units of beef and 20 units of textiles. (the darkened line does not intersect the horizontal beef axis because the United States cannot get more than 25 units of textiles from Japan.). At the same time trade permits Japan (right panel) to shift its consumption from the black production possibilities curve to the darkened curve. By producing at b 1 and exporting 20 units of textiles in exchange for 40 units of beef, Japan too can expand its consumption, from a 1 to c 1 . Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 7 between points a and c. In other words, international trade permits the United States to consume at a point beyond its own limited production possibilities curve (the black line in the graph). In the same way, Japan realizes a gain in welfare equal to the difference between its consumption before trade, a 1 , and its consumption after trade, c 1 . In the long run, a country’s imports are paid for by its exports. Thus, by engaging in international trade, according to comparative advantage, a country gains by reducing its social opportunity cost. The social opportunity cost of imports is the exports required to pay for the imports. If the resources used to produce exports are less than those required to produce the goods domestically, there is a net social economic gain. The Distributional Effects of Trade As we have seen, even a nation that has an absolute advantage in every production process can benefit from trade. In reality, no such nation exists, but that just underscores the point that even in the unlikeliest of conditions, we can make the case for free trade. Furthermore, if voluntary trade takes place we must assume that both parties perceive that they will gain. Why else would they agree to the arrangement? How much each nation gains depends on the terms of trade—the ratio at which one commodity can be traded or exchanged for another commodity internationally; or on an aggregate basis, it is the ratio of the price of exports to the price of imports. The more favorable a nation’s terms of trade, and therefore its exchange rate, the larger its share of gain in enhanced output. International trade remains a controversial subject, for although nations gain from trade, individuals within those nations may not. Individual gains tend to go to the firms that produce goods and services for export, losses tend to go to the firms that produce goods and services that are imported under free trade. Gains to Exporters Exporters of domestic goods gain from international trade because the market for their goods expands, increasing demand for their products. The increase in their revenue can be seen in Figure 17.2. When the demand curve shifts from D 1 to D 2 , producers’ revenues rise from P 1 Q 2 (point a) to P 2 Q 3 (point b). The more price-elastic or flatter the supply function (S), the larger the change in quantity and the smaller the change in price. The increase in revenues is equal to the shaded L-shaped area P 2 Q 3 Q 2 aP 1 . Producers benefit because they receive greater profits, equal to the shaded area above the supply curve, P 2 baP 1 . Workers and suppliers of raw materials benefit because their services are in greater demand, and therefore more costly. The cost of producing additional units for export is equal to the shaded area below the supply curve, Q 2 abQ 3 . This graph suggests why farmers supported the sales of wheat to the Soviet Union that began in the early 1970s. They complained loudly when the U.S. government suspended sales temporarily for political reasons. Many consumers and members of Congress objected the wheat sales, however, on the grounds that they would increase the domestic price of wheat and therefore of bread. In a narrow sense, consumers of Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 8 exported products have an interest in restricting their exportation. Yet in the broad context of international trade. Restrictions can work against the private interests of individuals, including even consumers of bread. Trade is ultimately a two-way street. To import goods and services that can be produced more cheaply abroad than at home, a nation must export something else. No nation will continually export part of what it produces without getting something in return. To the extent that exports are restricted to suit the special interests of some group, imports of other commodities also are restricted. Restrictions on the exportation of wheat may hold down the price of bread, but they can also increase the price of imported goods, like radios and television sets. __________________________________ FIGURE 17.2 Gains from the Export Trade The opening up of foreign markets to U.S. producers increases the demand for their products, from D 1 to D 2 . As a result, domestic producers can raise their price from P 1 to P 2 and sell a larger quantity, Q 3 instead of Q 2 . Revenues increase by the shaded area P 2 bQ 3 Q 2 aP 1 . The more price- elastic or flatter the supply function (S), the larger the change in quantity and the smaller the change in price. Losses to Firms Competing with Imports While consumers gain from increased imports, domestic producers may lose from increased competition. Foreign producers can gain a foothold in the domestic market in three ways: (1) by providing a better product than domestic firms; (2) by selling essentially the same product as domestic firms, but at a lower price; and (3) by providing a product previously unavailable in the domestic market. Most people welcome the importation of a previously unavailable product, but producers who face competition from foreign suppliers have an incentive to object to importation. If imports are allowed, the domestic supply of a good increases. Domestic competitors will sell less, and they may have to sell at a lower price. In short, the employment opportunities and real income of domestic producers decline as a result of foreign competition. Figure 17.3 shows the effects of importing foreign textiles. Without imports, demand is D and supply is S 1 . In a competitive market, producers will sell Q 2 units at a price of P 2 . Total receipts will beP 2 x Q 2 . The importation of foreign textiles increases the supply to S 2 , dropping the price from P 2 to P 1 . Because prices are lower, consumers increase their consumption from Q 2 to Q 3 and get more for their money. The more price- elastic or flatter the demand curve (D), the greater the change in quantity and the smaller the change in price. Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 9 __________________________________________ FIGURE 17.3 Losses from Competition with Imported Products The opening up of the market to foreign trade increases the supply of textiles from S 1 to S 2 . As a result, the price of textiles falls from P 2 to P 1 , and domestic producers sell a lower quantity, Q 1 instead of Q 2 . Consumers benefit from the lower price and the higher quantity of textiles they are able to buy, but domestic producers, workers and suppliers lose. Producers’ revenues drop by an amount equal to the shaded area P 2 abP 1 . Workers’ and suppliers’ payments drop by an amount equal to the shaded area Q 2 abQ 1 . Starting at point c, a tariff or tax equal to ad is levied, shifting the supply curve from S 2 , S 1 . In an industry whose costs are increasing, the increase in price from P 1 to P 2 in the importing country is less than the increase in the tariff (ad), because a price fall in the exporting country absorbs some of the burden of the duty. __________________________________ Domestic firms, their employees, and their suppliers lose. Because the price is lower, domestic producers must move down their supply curve (S 1 ) to the lower quantity Q 1 . Their revenues fall from P 2 Q 2 to P 1 Q 1 . In other words, the revenues in the shaded L-shaped area P 2 a Q 2 Q 1 bP 1 are lost. Of this total loss in revenues, owners of domestic firms lose the area above the supply curve, P 2 abP 1 . Workers and suppliers of raw materials lose the area below the supply curve, Q 2 abQ 1 . This is the cost domestic firms would incur in increasing production from Q 1 to Q 2 , the payments that would be made to domestic workers and suppliers in the absence of foreign competition. If workers and other resources are employed in textiles because it is their best possible employment, the introduction of foreign products can be seen as a restriction on some workers’ employment opportunities. In summary, while international trade lowers import prices and raises export prices in the domestic nation, the net impact is a reduced social opportunity cost curve that expands total output and consumption opportunities. The Effects of Trade Restrictions Such as Tariffs and Quotas Because foreign competition hurts some individuals, domestic producers, workers, and suppliers have an incentive to seek government restrictions on the imports of tradables. Of course, some industries such as communications, services, and utilities are largely insulated from foreign competition without trade restrictions. Two forms of protection are commonly used, tariffs and quotas. A tariff is a special tax or duty on imported goods that can be a percentage of the price (ad valorem duty) or a specific amount per unit of the product (specific duty). A tariff may be imposed to raise money for the Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 10 levying country—typically, revenues are modest on commodities not produced in the levying country—or in the more likely case, to protect some industry against the cold winds of competition. A quota is a physical or dollar value limit—mandatory or voluntary—on the amount of a good that can be imported or exported during some specified period of time. There are other nontariff barriers such as controlling the flow of foreign exchange, licensing requirements, health, quality, or safety restriction and regulations on products. If tariffs are imposed on a foreign good such as textiles, the supply of textiles will decrease—say, from S 2 to S 1 in Figure 17.3—and the price of imports will rise. Domestic producers will raise their prices too, and domestic production will go up. If the tariff is high and all foreign textiles are excluded, the supply will shift all the way back to S 1 . A tariff will have a more modest effect, shifting the supply curve only part of the way back toward S 1 . The price of textiles will rise and domestic producers will expand their production, but imports will continue to come into the country. How much the price rises and the quantity falls after the imposition of the tariff depends on how price-elastic or flat the demand curve (D) is. The more elastic D is, the greater the fall in quantity and the greater the rise in price. The imposition of a duty can cause the taxed good in the importing country to increase by exactly the amount of the duty, less than the duty, or in the extreme case, not at all (depending on price elasticity). In the most likely case (of increasing cost conditions and a rising supply curve) a tariff will cause the price to increase in the importing country by less than the amount of the duty as the price falls in the foreign country. The tariff will cause the domestic and foreign price to differ by exactly the amount of the tariff, but the price increase in the importing country is equal to the tariff minus fall in price in the exporting country. Thus, in Figure 17.3, starting from point c, the increase in the price in the importing country from P 1 to P 2 is less than the tariff equal to ad, shifting the supply curve from S 2 to S 1 as part of the duty is shifted to the exporting country where the price falls. For instance, a tariff of $3 per unit may cause the import price to rise by $2 and the export price to fall by $1 with both nations absorbing part of the burden of the tariff. Who bears the biggest burden is a matter of relative price elasticity, just as whether buyers or sellers bear the burden of a domestic excise tax. As always, the more inelastic the demand of the buyers and the more elastic the supply of the sellers, the bigger burden of any tax—domestic (e.g., excise) or foreign (e.g., an import duty)—that falls on the buyers. A quota has the same general effect as a tariff, although its price-cost effect can be much more drastic. They both reduce the market supply, raise the market price, a encourage domestic production, thereby helping domestic producers and harming domestic consumers. A quota, however, can sever international price-cost links because the market mechanism for relating the prices of different nations is artificially stopped from functioning. Nonetheless, quotas are sometimes imposed by nations because they are a more certain and precise technique of control, and can be changed by administrative decree. There are three main differences between quotas and tariffs. First quotas firmly restrict the amount of a product that can be imported, regardless of market conditions. A quota may specify how much oil may be imported each day or how much sugar may be imported each year. Tariffs, on the other hand, permit any level of importation for which [...]... holdings of foreign banks So will American expenditures abroad whether for tours or for foreign stocks and bonds Americans must have francs for such transactions; therefore, they must offer American dollars in exchange In most instances, foreign banks end up holding the dollars that Americans have sold In the same way, U.S exports reduce the dollar holdings of foreign banks Exports are typically paid for out... (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987), pp 11 8-1 19 12 Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance aren’t really job-saving or job-creating, but job-swapping Protectionism raises the exchange rate, hurting exports in unprotected industries Because in the long run the value of exports must be equal to the value of imports, we end up swapping jobs in efficient unprotected industries The Case for Free Trade We... flows occur when there are interest rate differentials between nations Figure 17. 8 illustrates the process for prices in general As U.S demand for foreign goods rises, the demand curve for francs shifts outward from D1 to D 2 , shifting the equilibrium from E1 to E 2 As foreign demand for U.S products falls, the supply curve for francs shifts to the left, from S1 to S2 At the initial equilibrium exchange... they get the goods and foreigners get the money.7 What are foreigners going to do with the money they receive, however? If they never spend it, Americans will be better off, for they will have gotten some foreign goods in exchange for some paper bills, which are relatively cheap to print At some point, however, foreign exporters will want to get something concrete in return for their labor and materials... your dollars for francs, or the cheesemaker must convert them for you At some point, currencies must be exchanged at some recognized exchange rate Foreign exchange is the monetary means or instruments used to make monetary payments and transfers from one currency to another The funds available as foreign exchange include foreign coin and currency, deposits in foreign banks, and other short-term, liquid... Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 15 Thus the case for free trade is a subtle one As always, special-interest group -entrepreneurs, labor organizations, consumer groups will pursue their individual interests, competing for favors and benefits the same way they compete in the marketplace Yet if all are to be treated equally by government, we must make the choice between free trade for. .. services earlier in the book – Americans will be likely to demand more foreign imports, both directly and in the form of domestic goods that incorporate foreign parts or materials Either way, an increase in real incomes leads to an increase in the demand for foreign currencies Again the demand for francs will rise, as in Figure 17. 7 The exchange rate will rise with it to bring the quantity supplied... held up shipment of spare parts for planes it had sold to Israel earlier The United States could conceivably find itself in a similar position if it relies on foreign firms for planes, firearms, and oil Special-interest groups can easily abuse the national defense argument for tariffs The textile industry, for example, promotes itself as a ready source of combat uniforms during wartime Even candle... prices of foreign goods can be lower Like any other form of price control, however, control of foreign exchange rates creates its own problems If the exchange rate is fixed—at ER1 in Figure 17. 8, for example—and the supply and demand curves remain stable, there is no problem There is no need for government to fix the rate either, however, It will remain ER1 as long as the supply and demand curves for currency... If American expenditures abroad exceed foreign expenditures here for a long time, foreign banks will eventually accumulate all the dollars they can reasonably expect to use Foreign banks then have several options First, they may sell their dollar holdings to other foreign commercial banks to their government—or, more properly, to their government’s central bank (for example, the Bank of France) The market . available as foreign exchange include foreign coin and currency, deposits in foreign banks, and other short-term, liquid financial claims payable in foreign currencies. Chapter 17 International. Readings in Economics, ed. Paul Samuelson (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), 7 th ed., p. 237. Chapter 17 International Trade and Finance 17 1983, for the same reason, the Reagan administration granted. (Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics 1986). 5 Alan Blinder, Hard Heads, Soft Hearts (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987), pp. 11 8-1 19. Chapter 17 International Trade and