"We want to be known not just for what we consume, but for what we produce. And the more we export abroad, the more jobs we create in America. In fact, every $1 billion we export supports more than 5,000 jobs at home.
It is for this reason that I set a goal of doubling America’s exports in the next five years. To do that, we need to find new customers in new markets for American-made goods. And some of the fastest-growing markets in the world are in Asia, where I’m traveling this week."
"If the rich countries are not consuming and want to grow its economy on exports, the world goes bankrupt because there would be no one to buy," he told reporters. "Everybody would like to sell."
It's certainly true that not everyone can increase exports at the same time. But if there is an "imbalance" in trade, should those who are currently exporting too little be able to export more, to bring things into balance? Does it matter what the cause of the imbalance is? Is a country with a negative trade balance exporting too little, or is it consuming too much? How do we deal with the fact that the "results" of trade flows -- that is, the absolute numbers -- end up in an "imbalance"? Does that mean the rules are unfair? If so, which aspect of the rules? Would floating exchange rates correct these imbalances? How do we deal with the fact many economic policies affect exchange rates?
No doubt the G20 participants are kicking around a lot of these questions. I'm not sure how likely it is they will find much common ground.
