“There are an amazing number of good ideas and interesting points made in Unintended Consequences. The thinking underlying it, and the obvious depth of understanding of the author, are very impressive.” - Steven Levitt, coauthor of Freakonomics; 2004 John Bates Clark Medal
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management

Showing 115 database articles primarily about Savings Glut/Trade Deficit

Currently filtering by:

Remove Savings Glut/Trade Deficit

Remove "primary topics only" restriction

Remove 'Database'

Show all 7,315 articles

For whatever topics you select (currently: Savings Glut/Trade Deficit):

Include articles that mention this topic 243

Only articles primarily about this topic 115

Savings Gluts And Investment Droughts

Martin Sandbu Financial Times

Date Posted:: June 18, 2020
Is Database:: Database

Global savings glut has not led to a corresponding investment boom, raising questions about why surplus economies’ exported capital is consumed rather than invested by deficit economies.

Despite a global savings glut, there has not been a corresponding investment boom, raising questions about why surplus economies' exported capital is consumed rather than invested by deficit economies. On a global level, saving and investment must balance, yet increased net saving from surplus economies has not led to higher investment in deficit economies but rather to lower domestic saving and higher consumption. Weak demand can hold back investment when macroeconomic policy fails to shift pessimistic expectations. Additionally, net capital inflows into technologically advanced economies like the US may shift productive structures towards non-traded activities, which are less investment-intensive. Furthermore, increased market concentration, potentially encouraged by low interest rates, weakens investment incentives. These factors contribute to the disconnect between savings and investment, highlighting complex macroeconomic dynamics.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The global savings glut has not produced a corresponding investment boom: increased net saving exported by surplus economies has shown up in deficit economies as lower domestic saving and higher consumption rather than higher investment.
Weak demand can hold back investment when macroeconomic policy fails to shift pessimistic expectations.
Net capital inflows into technologically advanced economies such as the US may shift productive structures toward less investment-intensive non-traded activities, while greater market concentration, potentially encouraged by low interest rates, weakens investment incentives.

Martin Sandbu, "Savings Gluts And Investment Droughts,"Financial Times, June 18, 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/6360c193-2fa8-488a-b8d3-f2fec3f203a2

“..economists have picked up on one of the key puzzles thrown up by Klein and Pettis’s argument: if there is a global savings glut, how come there has not been a global investment boom to absorb the greater desire for saving?... On a global level saving and investment must balance. So it cannot be that the world as a whole invests less than it saves. To be precise, then, the question is why an increase in net saving exported as capital from surplus economies has not been matched by higher investment in deficit economies but instead by lower domestic saving and higher consumption. To simplify, why has the exported capital from “savings glut” countries been consumed rather than invested by the importers? (This way of stating the problem, by the way, suggests it is too one-sided to condemn surplus countries exclusively. When economies run up current account deficits while their rates of public and private investment drop, this must also reflect their own internal dynamics. I also disagree that capital exports from surplus economies have falling employment in deficit countries as the “inevitable consequence”, as Klein and Pettis suggest. The only advanced economy that saw consistently falling employment — outside of recessions — in the period in which global macroeconomic asymmetries grew was the US, and that had much to do with its own specific pathologies.)… a number of possible mechanisms to explain the failure of investment to respond to increased savings. One is that weak demand can hold back investment when macroeconomic policy fails to unlodge pessimistic expectations. (We need not accept that central banks are unable to do this to believe in this mechanism, just that they are unwilling to stimulate enough.)Another is a “financial resource curse” through which net capital inflows into technologically leading economies such as the US shift their productive structure towards non-traded activities that may be less investment-intensive. This would be a specific case of the broader problem that beyond a certain point, financial deepening is bad for growth because it allocates capital to less productive uses. The third possible mechanism is that investment incentives are weakened by more market concentration which, in turn, may have been encouraged by low interest rates….”

Sandbu on the key question arising from Pettis’ new book

Ed Comment:Oy! Sandbu (and his new book) is a particularly virulent stain of the misguided macro economists I was describing in the last email. The last Rognlie paper confirmed a large piece of the puzzle (which I have known for years). Neither savers nor investor are very sensitive to interest rates—the price that equilibrates savings. In large part, that’s because the marginal cost of capital is (constrained) equity not (unconstrained) debt. If not interest rates, then what constrains investment? Risk and expected return, especially since non-financial investors are overwhelmingly undiversified. What is needed to assess and manage risk? Properly trained talent. Good ideas can and do become money-losing ideas if you lack the talent to design, implement, and supervise them. So why don’t investors just increase the capital per worker in underdeveloped countries?Because countries are underdeveloped BECAUSE they lack the talent needed to make those investments work. Or said differently the talent is working on projects with higher returns, often project that don’t require much debt (e.g., IT).A guy like Sandbu doesn’t want to see that, so he can’t see it. And again, he only sees an out-of-date 2-factor model—labor and capital without talent.

How To Buy A Trade Surplus

Joseph Gagnon and Nishtha Agrawal Peterson Institute For International Economics

Date Posted:: July 29, 2026
Is Database:: Database
Is Important:: Important

Using annual data for 146 countries from 1985 – 2024, Gagnon and Agrawal find that a $1 increase in a country’s cyclically adjusted fiscal deficit is associated with a 22–38¢ increase in its current-account deficit, with most of the estimates ~30¢.

Table 1 presents regression results. The evidence strongly suggests that governments can buy current account surpluses. Raising the fiscal balance by $1 tends to raise the current account by $0.30 [Table 1, first row]. Issuing $1 of domestic currency debt to buy foreign-currency assets (foreign exchange intervention) raises the current account anywhere from $0.20 to $1.00, with a value around $0.50 to $0.60 most plausible [Rows 2 though 5]. NOF is Net Official Flows, and NOS is the stock of net official foreign assets. The most powerful policy, as exemplified by Norway and Singapore, is to run a fiscal surplus and invest the proceeds in foreign-currency assets. In that case, $1 buys a current account surplus of around $0.80 or so. The results are supported by annual panel regressions of current accounts and cross-country stock regressions of cumulated current accounts or stocks of net foreign assets. The estimated effects in the panel regressions may be biased down slightly by incomplete modeling of lagged effects.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Regression results suggest that raising the fiscal balance by $1 tends to raise the current account by about $0.30.
Issuing $1 of domestic currency debt to buy foreign-currency assets is estimated to raise the current account by $0.20 to $1.00, with $0.50 to $0.60 most plausible.
Combining a fiscal surplus with investment of the proceeds in foreign-currency assets, as Norway and Singapore do, is estimated to buy a current account surplus of around $0.80 per $1.

Honey, Who Shrunk the U.S. Income Surplus?

Matthew Higgins and Thomas Klitgaard Liberty Street Economics

Date Posted:: May 19, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The US net international investment position worsened by about $16tn between 2019 and 2025, driven by roughly $5.5tn in net inflows and $10tn in valuation losses, as higher rates hit a larger net liability stock, raising interest rate-sensitivity.

Foreign holdings of U.S. financial assets are immense, with official estimates putting their current market value at $69 trillion. U.S. holdings of foreign assets are also impressive but much smaller, at $41 trillion. The shortfall in U.S. foreign assets relative to foreign liabilities has been mounting for decades. Yet U.S. investment income receipts—in profits, dividends, and interest—comfortably exceeded income payments until recently. Payments on U.S. assets owned by foreign investors represent a servicing burden for the U.S. economy. Profits, dividends, and interest payments that would otherwise accrue to domestic investors instead flow abroad. Given the need to sell U.S. assets to finance ongoing trade deficits, this servicing burden seems likely to mount. The related buildup in the U.S. net liability position in interest-bearing assets will also make the income balance more sensitive to swings in interest rates. This increased sensitivity is already in evidence. At present, with the asset-liability gap at -$15 trillion, a 1 percentage point increase in U.S. and foreign interest rates would subtract $150 billion from the U.S. net income balance. (A 1pp fall in rates would result in a similar improvement.) Only five years ago, a 1 percentage point rise in rates would have subtracted $100 billion.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Official estimates put the current market value of foreign holdings of U.S. financial assets at $69tn, against $41tn of U.S. holdings of foreign assets, a shortfall that has been mounting for decades.
With the U.S. asset-liability gap in interest-bearing assets at -$15tn, a 1 percentage point rise in U.S. and foreign interest rates would subtract $150bn from the U.S. net income balance, compared with $100bn five years ago.
U.S. investment income receipts in profits, dividends, and interest exceeded income payments until recently, and the servicing burden on foreign-owned U.S. assets seems likely to mount given the need to sell U.S. assets to finance ongoing trade deficits.

Don't Blame America's Current Account Deficit On the Dollar

Maurice Obstfeld Peterson Institute for International Economics

Date Posted:: April 14, 2026
Is Database:: Database

Noting the minimal relationship between official liabilities and the CA, Obstfeld argues that the reserve currency role of the dollar is not the cause of the trade deficit. He urges reduction in the US fiscal deficit to increase national saving.

Critics of the dollar's global role have argued that foreign official dollar purchases (labeled US incurrence of official liabilities in the figure) feed one-for-one into US current account deficits. To illustrate the true loose relationship between these two variables, the figure shows both of them over the 2003–25 period, as percentages of GDP. US net incurrence of liabilities to official holders, reported with a minus sign as in standard balance-of-payments methodology, is usually far too small to mirror the US current account deficit. And since roughly 2014, net official financial inflows have fluctuated around zero as the current account deficit has widened. To be sure, the strong international demand for dollars may make the dollar stronger against foreign currencies than it would be otherwise, [but] while they imply a smaller current account balance, they do not necessarily imply a negative balance and certainly not a rising negative balance, especially when foreign dollar reserve holdings have been shrinking relative to global economic activity (as figure 1 also implies). The euro is the world's second reserve currency, yet the euro area has a current account surplus. Britain had surpluses up until World War I despite issuing the world's premier global currency and hosting its leading financial center. Reducing the US fiscal deficit materially and sustainably is the most important US policy prerequisite for global current account rebalancing.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

US net incurrence of liabilities to official foreign holders over 2003–25, measured as a share of GDP, is usually far too small to mirror the US current account deficit, contradicting claims that official dollar purchases feed one-for-one into it.
Since roughly 2014, US net official financial inflows have fluctuated around zero while the US current account deficit widened, and foreign dollar reserve holdings have been shrinking relative to global economic activity.
The euro area runs a current account surplus despite the euro's status as the world's second reserve currency, and Britain ran surpluses until World War I while issuing the premier global currency and hosting its leading financial center.

Understanding Global Imbalances

IMF Staff International Monetary Fund

Date Posted:: April 7, 2026
Is Database:: Database

As of 2024, the US, China, Germany, and Japan accounted for ~2/3 of total global imbalances (the sum of the absolute value of each economy’s current account deficit and surplus). The US CA deficit is between 0.8 and 1% of world GDP.

Four economies—the US, China, Germany, and Japan—account for roughly two-thirds of global imbalances. The US deficit—equivalent to 4% of GDP as of 2024—has been financed by capital inflows and portfolio investors seeking dollar assets. Germany and Japan’s surpluses have been driven by high saving rates, joined by substantial surpluses in China beginning in the 2000s. Oil-exporting countries’ surpluses fluctuate with commodity prices, creating episodic contributions to global imbalances. In earlier decades, surpluses and deficits were more cyclical: countries moved in and out of surplus depending on business cycles, commodity shocks, and exchange rate movements. While there is no standard definition of persistence, the average duration of a deficit or surplus spell roughly doubled since the 1980s. Persistent surpluses over the past two decades have accumulated into very large net foreign asset positions for economies such as China, Germany, and Japan, with each holding net foreign assets equivalent to 3–3.5% of global GDP in 2024. Similarly, persistent deficits have built up into large net liability positions, most notably in the US where the NIIP stands at about -25% of global GDP in 2024, underscoring the central role of the US position in global balances (Figure 6).

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The US, China, Germany, and Japan together account for roughly two-thirds of global imbalances, with the US deficit equal to 4% of GDP in 2024, financed by capital inflows and portfolio investors seeking dollar assets.
The average duration of a deficit or surplus spell roughly doubled since the 1980s, when countries moved in and out of surplus with business cycles, commodity shocks, and exchange rate movements.
China, Germany, and Japan each held net foreign assets equivalent to 3–3.5% of global GDP in 2024, while the US net international investment position stood at about -25% of global GDP.

China’s Cheap Money Is Shaking $9.5 Trillion Global Loan Market

Bloomberg Staff Bloomberg

Date Posted:: March 5, 2026
Is Database:: Database

China’s savings glut and “monetary easing to counter slowing growth” are manifesting themselves in credit expansion overseas, as bankers seek higher yields than they can get at home amidst deflationary pressure.

Chinese banks, flush with low-cost funds, are reshaping parts of the global loan market, underscoring how deflationary pressures in the world’s second-largest economy are increasingly influencing competition with international lenders. Much like US and European manufacturers who have long complained about being undercut by cheaper Chinese rivals, bankers at global institutions now say they’re facing the financial equivalent: being priced out of some of Asia’s most sought-after borrowers as Chinese lenders extend cheaper credit across borders. Enabled by Beijing’s monetary easing to counter slowing growth, Chinese banks are expanding overseas lending amid weakening domestic credit demand. That edge may prove even more significant as the Iran crisis threatens to upend global energy markets, raising the likelihood that major central banks will hold off easing interest rates amid mounting uncertainty.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Chinese banks, flush with low-cost funds from Beijing's monetary easing, are reshaping parts of the $9.5 trillion global loan market by extending cheaper credit across borders.
Bankers at global institutions say they are being priced out of some of Asia's most sought-after borrowers by Chinese lenders, a financial equivalent of the undercutting US and European manufacturers have long complained about.
Weakening domestic credit demand in China is accompanying an expansion of its banks' overseas lending, an edge that may prove more significant if the Iran crisis leads major central banks to hold off easing interest rates.

Tariffs and "International Payments Problems"

Matt Klein The Overshoot

Date Posted:: March 4, 2026
Is Database:: Database

The worsening of the US net international investment position – from -20% of US GDP in 2010, to -53% pre-pandemic, and to -89% as of the end of 2025Q3 – reflects valuation gains on US stocks relative to stocks in the rest of the world.

Foreigners are accumulating more financial claims on Americans than Americans are accumulating on foreigners across every single category: FDI, stocks, bonds, physical currency, deposits, and loans. Foreign official investors supposedly have been mild sellers of U.S. assets over the past 12 months, but the standard measure does not include state-affiliated institutions that operate on behalf of foreign governments. Meanwhile, the U.S. net international investment position has swung massively over the past few years, from -20% of U.S. GDP in 2010, to -53% of U.S. GDP on the eve of the pandemic to -89% as of the end of 2025Q3. Almost all of that reflects massive valuation gains on U.S. stocks relative to stock markets in the rest of the world. The good news is that actual U.S. indebtedness has not meaningfully increased, and the methods used to assign market values to FDI in the U.S. and abroad make the situation look more extreme than it is. (U.S. FDI assets in Ireland are overwhelmingly big tech and big pharma, for example, but the market value of those assets is imputed based on the performance of the maker of Kerrygold.) The bad news is that, if the current level of the NIIP is unsustainable, the easiest way for it to revert is for U.S. stock prices to fall dramatically.

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

The U.S. net international investment position swung from -20% of GDP in 2010 to -53% just before the pandemic and -89% as of 2025Q3, almost all reflecting valuation gains on U.S. stocks relative to foreign stock markets.
Foreigners are accumulating more financial claims on Americans than Americans are on foreigners in every category — FDI, stocks, bonds, physical currency, deposits, and loans — while actual U.S. indebtedness has not meaningfully increased.
Methods for assigning market values to foreign direct investment make the imbalance look more extreme than it is, since U.S. FDI assets in Ireland are overwhelmingly big tech and big pharma yet are valued using the performance of the maker of Kerrygold.

Global savings glut has not led to a corresponding investment boom, raising questions about why surplus economies’ exported capital is consumed rather than invested by deficit economies.

Why has a global savings glut not produced more investment?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Using annual data for 146 countries from 1985 – 2024, Gagnon and Agrawal find that a $1 increase in a country’s cyclically adjusted fiscal deficit is associated with a 22–38¢ increase in its current-account deficit, with most of the estimates ~30¢.

Can governments buy current account surpluses with fiscal and currency policy?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

The US net international investment position worsened by about $16tn between 2019 and 2025, driven by roughly $5.5tn in net inflows and $10tn in valuation losses, as higher rates hit a larger net liability stock, raising interest rate-sensitivity.

How does a growing net liability position affect U.S. investment income?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Noting the minimal relationship between official liabilities and the CA, Obstfeld argues that the reserve currency role of the dollar is not the cause of the trade deficit. He urges reduction in the US fiscal deficit to increase national saving.

Does the dollar's reserve role drive the US current account deficit?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

As of 2024, the US, China, Germany, and Japan accounted for ~2/3 of total global imbalances (the sum of the absolute value of each economy’s current account deficit and surplus). The US CA deficit is between 0.8 and 1% of world GDP.

How persistent are global current account imbalances and which economies drive them?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

China’s savings glut and “monetary easing to counter slowing growth” are manifesting themselves in credit expansion overseas, as bankers seek higher yields than they can get at home amidst deflationary pressure.

Are Chinese banks undercutting global rivals in cross-border lending?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

The worsening of the US net international investment position – from -20% of US GDP in 2010, to -53% pre-pandemic, and to -89% as of the end of 2025Q3 – reflects valuation gains on US stocks relative to stocks in the rest of the world.

Does the deteriorating U.S. investment position reflect borrowing or stock valuations?

Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI

Related Articles:

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI

Takeaways by Macro Roundup^® AI