Loading today’s stories
Leadership1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
A Foreign Affairs essay holds that persistent surpluses and deficits have to close eventually, and that because the three largest players cannot agree on what caused them, the closing will not be negotiated.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
Start with the accounting, because it is the part of the argument that does not turn on anyone's politics. An advanced, capital-rich economy that runs an enduring trade deficit ends up with either rising unemployment or rising debt, and the Foreign Affairs essay treats neither as something that can run indefinitely [2]. The gap closes through demand or through borrowing, both have ceilings, and reaching either one is what the word adjustment describes.
The negotiated version is not complicated. Surplus economies expand domestic demand, deficit economies reduce their reliance on debt-fuelled consumption, and the imbalances shrink without a sharp contraction in global demand [3]. That is the board-deck slide, and it is incomplete because it assumes a shared diagnosis. What is actually on offer, according to the essay, are three remedies at odds with each other: Beijing wants deficit countries to save more and would rather not alter China's growth model, Washington wants surplus countries to redistribute income to the household sector, and European leaders keep pressing for multilateral cooperation and rules-based trade [5]. Each is coherent on its own. Any two of them run into each other in practice.
The interwar precedent is worth reading for its sequencing rather than its scale. The imbalance took a decade to build: American productivity rose without matching wages, production ran past consumption, the United States ran large surpluses, European countries borrowed abroad to rebuild after the war, Germany borrowed to finance growth and reparations, and American domestic debt climbed to fund consumption and asset speculation [10]. The responses then arrived one capital at a time. France devalued in 1927, the United States passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in 1931, and Germany imposed import restrictions and rationed access to foreign currency the same year [11]. That is four separate national measures inside the five calendar years from 1927 through 1931 [1].
A skeptic would say this warning is decades old, the imbalances are still here, and a forecast that keeps not happening is not a plan. On timing, that is fair, and nothing in the essay supplied to us puts a date on the adjustment. On direction it does not help, because the case rests on ceilings rather than on a calendar, and the skeptic still has to say which of unemployment or rising debt the deficit economy will accept in place of an adjustment [2].
So the distinction worth holding is between this quarter and this decade. This quarter's work is ordinary and unglamorous: knowing which contracts, currencies and customer concentrations can be repriced on normal terms, and which would have to be renegotiated under stress, with a counterparty that has lost pricing power. The decade's question is who is holding the second category when the imbalance closes. Firms that already know which of their exposures sit there will be negotiating from a different position than firms that find out during the adjustment.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
China, Germany, and a handful of other economies run large, persistent trade surpluses, while the United States absorbs much of these surpluses by running the world's largest trade deficit.
The major players disagree about causes: China attributes the imbalances to excessive U.S. consumption and fiscal deficits; the United States blames foreign industrial, trade, and currency policies; and Europe has yet to settle on a coherent diagnosis.
The three players have proposed remedies at odds with one another: Beijing wants deficit countries to save more and prefers not to change China's growth model; Washington wants surplus countries to reduce surpluses by redistributing income to the household sector; European leaders continue to advocate multilateral cooperation and rules-based trade.
The essay cites economic analyst Martin Wolf, writing in the Financial Times earlier this year, that if there is little prospect of preemptive action, 'the second-best option is to prepare for a crisis.'
In the 1920s, a surge in American productivity was not accompanied by rising wages, production soared past consumption, and the United States ran enormous trade surpluses; Europe ran the corresponding deficits, borrowing heavily abroad to rebuild after the war, with Germany borrowing extensively to finance domestic growth and reparations, while American domestic debt rose rapidly to fund consumption and asset speculation.
France devalued its currency in 1927, the United States passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in 1931, and Germany imposed import restrictions and rationed access to foreign currency in 1931.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
1 article · August 27, 2026
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
leadership
Hormuz Was Shut For Four Months And Nothing Broke. The Buffer That Did That Is Spent.1 distinct publisher
leadership
Six months of on-off war has turned Gulf interruption into a line item, not a scenario1 distinct publisher
leadership
India's "America plus" keeps the diversification thesis alive on Modi's restraint alone1 distinct publisher
invest
China's crude imports fell to a 2016 low, and the self-sufficiency bill looks cheaper1 distinct publisher
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
A century of receipts, no current numbers
The historical spine is checkable to the year — France devaluing in 1927, Smoot-Hawley in 1930, Britain off gold and Germany rationing foreign currency in 1931, then the uneven Depression damage that hit surplus-running America hardest — and Foreign Affairs lays it out without embellishment. The present tense is where the sourcing thins to nothing: not one deficit total, surplus share, debt ratio or productivity figure for China, Germany or the United States appears in what we hold. 'Something must give' is argued from analogy, not measured.
Nothing yet to count
There is no uptake in this story to score. The coordinated adjustment Foreign Affairs describes is explicitly the road not taken, and the 'preparation' each capital is said to be doing is never named, dated or attached to a policy, negotiation or program. We are not going to score a hypothetical as though it were in motion.
Certainty running ahead of arithmetic
'Fundamentally untenable' and 'sooner or later, something must give' are heavy words for an argument that never puts a date or a quantity on the adjustment. Against that, the essay is unusually disciplined about what it refuses to claim: it does not forecast timing, does not size the shock, and reduces its own bet to who pays. The overreach is in the register, not in the conclusion.
An argument that needs the deficit to be doomed
Nobody in this story is selling a security or a product; the pull is intellectual rather than commercial, and Foreign Affairs is transparent that it publishes arguments. Still, worth noticing who is not in the room. No surplus-country economist, no Treasury or Commission official answers the charge sheet, and the single outside authority summoned — Martin Wolf in the Financial Times — is quoted because he already agrees that the sensible fix will not happen.
One essay, and not all of it
Our copy breaks off mid-sentence in the 1970s petrodollar passage, so the remaining episodes and whatever the author prescribes at the end are outside our reach. What we do have is internally consistent and clearly reasoned, but it is one publisher's opening argument with no second account to test it against — high confidence on the interwar chronology, low confidence on everything forward-looking.