(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing’s Not Only Decoupling from China

Tags

737 Max, aircraft, Boeing, China, Commerce Department, decoupling, GDP-by-industry, manufacturing, output, Trade, Trade Deficits, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Commerce Department’s GDP-by-Industry series is almost always overlooked by followers of the economy, and partly that’s the Commerce Department’s fault. Its updates are invariably a quarter behind, so it’s what analysts call a (seriously) lagging indicator that says relatively little about the more important question of what’s in store.

Nonetheless, even when they’re lagging, distinctive and detailed indicators can clarify long-term trends considerably, and that’s why I like GDP-by-Industry and track it so closely. Because it sheds lots of light on some of the most important economic and trade-related issues of the day – and especially on the impact of President Trump’s tariff-heavy policies. Specifically, the latest set of figures, which were issued January 9, reveal that during the Trump administration, the United States has continued to progress toward the worthy goal of reducing domestic manufacturing’s dependence on imports (and especially imports from increasingly hostile countries like China) for acceptable levels of growth. 

In other words, the People’s Republic isn’t the only country from which American manufacturing is decoupling. 

According to the new data, the latest year-on-quarter results show that between the third quarter of 2018 and the third quarter of 2019, U.S. manufacturing output (measured according to a gauge called gross value added) increased by 1.21 percent. That’s not much. But the manufacturing trade deficit during this period rose by only 2.55 percent. (Both figures are in pre-inflation dollars, because inflation-adjusted manufacturing trade figures aren’t available.)

Although this growth rate is lower than that achieved between the second quarter of 2018 and the second quarter of 2019 (2.03 percent), that figure was accompanied by a much faster increase in the manufacturing trade deficit (7.83 percent). The first quarter to first quarter results? Manufacturing production growth of 2.76 percent, and manufacturing trade deficit increase of 1.29 percent. That is, manufacturing output actually grew faster than the trade deficit. So from that standpoint, the third quarter result are disappointing.

They look even more disappointing when compared with the results from the first two years of the Trump administration. In 2017, manufacturing production also grew somewhat faster (3.99 percent) than the increase in manufacturing’s trade gap (3.16 percent), and in 2018, output grew much faster (6.23 percent to 3.96 percent).

These Trump presidency figures, in turn, have been much better than those reported for President Obama’s administration. Once the current economic recovery entered a normal phase (2011), the manufacturing trade deficit grew much faster than output ever year except for 2013.

So what’s the case for the latest third quarter 2018-third quarter 2019 figures representing continued progress? And why should anyone be happy with 1.21 percent annual manufacturing output growth no matter what’s happening on the trade deficit side?

Two answers suggest themselves. First, since the President began imposing tariffs in earnest (essentially, in April, 2018), importers have been “front-running” their purchases from abroad.  Their efforts to secure these deals before various sets of tariffs kicked in has produced several short-term distortions in the trade deficit in particular. Second, since the spring, Boeing’s safety woes have exerted a major drag both on domestic manufacturing output and on industry’s trade performance – since the aircraft giant has long been America’s leading exporting company.

Just one example of the difference Boeing has made: Between the third quarters of 2018 and 2019, the U.S. civilian aircraft trade surplus dropped from just under $10 billion to just under $6.5 billion. Civilian aircraft is of course the product category containing Boeing’s troubled 737 Max jet, and the plane was grounded worldwide, or banned from many national airspaces, starting in March.

The relationship between trade balances and production is never one-to-one, especially over relatively short time frames. And the matter becomes more complicated in sectors like aircraft, with its long lead times and generally large backlogs. But it’s difficult to believe that the 737 Max crisis and the narrowing of the aircraft trade surplus hasn’t impacted American civilian aircraft production and exports at all. (In fact, between those two quarters civilian aircraft exports, which are strongly related to output levels, sank by $2.75 billion, or nearly 22 percent.)

Moreover, for the purposes of comparing manufacturing output growth and the manufacturing’s trade deficit growth, the aircraft troubles are significant. Had the category’s trade performance simply remained the same between the third quarters of 2018 and 2019, the trade shortfall would have increased not by 2.55 percent, but 1.25 percent – less than half the rate. As result, during that period, manufacturing’s output (1.21 percent) and trade deficit would have grown at very nearly the same pace.

What does the future hold for this key ratio? On the one hand, civilian aircraft production is bound to decrease for the foreseeable future due to the 737 Max production halt announced by Boeing in mid-December. On the other, numerous signs indicate that industry overall has come out of the recession that dogged it for much of the last year and a half (and that by some output measures, never happened at all). Moreover, the Phase One trade deal signed by the United States and China last week could well reduce at least some of the tariff-related uncertainty that’s clearly slowed manufacturing-heavy capital spending decisions by American business in general, and certainly in manufacturing itself.

That looks like a modest case for domestic manufacturing continuing its longer term trend of becoming more self-sufficient while growing adequately – a development that makes major sense in a world that’s far more uncertain.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Let’s Get Real When Criticizing Trump’s China Trade Deal

Tags

Charles Schumer, China, dispute resolution, enforcement, Made in China 2025, Phase One, rule of law, tariffs, Trade, trade deal, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Of all the desperation- and Trump Derangement Syndrome-fueled arguments used to disparage the President’s new “Phase One” trade deal with China, one stands out as especially silly. It’s the complaint that the agreement hasn’t secured Beijing’s agreement to change its laws permitting the various predatory trade and broader predatory commercial practices that China is using to seize world leadership in key advanced industries and technologies, or otherwise promise verifiably to halt them. (Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer of New York has been particularly outspoken on this point.)

And the complaint isn’t silly simply because the very title of the deal – Phase One – makes completely clear that it was never meant to once and for all solve all the grave problems that Chinese predation has created. It’s mainly silly for two reasons. First, the absence of anything remotely resembling rule of law in China means that Chinese promises to change laws and regulations and even actions to change what’s on paper could not be less important.

For China’s system is based on the arbitrary exercise of power  That is, by definition, its dictators and the bureaucracies they run feel absolutely no obligation to adhere to whatever text happens to be on paper at a given moment. In fact, one of the main purposes of publishing these fake measures is to keep outsiders ignorant of the practices both of the central government and of the various layers of sub-national government – i.e., the situation on the ground, and what needs to be done to become or remain viable in China.

Second, thanks to Phase One’s actual terms, whether the Chinese do or don’t change their laws, and even their practices, matters little now. That’s because the stiff remaining tariffs on massive amounts of Chinese goods intended for American customers effectively deny Beijing the ability to turn its technology extortion into advantages in the U.S. market – the market it needs to access and dominate in order to realize its ambitions. Indeed, the highest remaining tariffs (25 percent) penalize the very high value products targeted by the Made in China 2025 program that’s carrying out Beijing’s plans.

Moreover Phase One’s dispute-resolution and enforcement system – which ingeniously and crucially establishes a de facto American last word – goes far toward preventing China from using Made in China 2025 to turn its predation into advantages in the China’s own large market, either. If it makes the attempt, American victims can take their cases to the Washington, which enjoys broad authority under the deal to hike duties on key Chinese products even higher – and without fear of tit-for-tat Chinese retaliation. China’s only legal option is pulling out of agreement entirely – which given its continuing heavy reliance on accessing the American market, would amount to cutting off more than its nose to spite its face.

Thoughtful criticisms of Phase One have come from some quarters. Further, as I wrote in my initial assessment of the dispute-resolution system, realizing its benefits for the United States will require American leaders to show major poker-playing skills – which shouldn’t be taken for granted under the Trump administration, let alone under future Presidents. Neither development is guaranteed. But Phase One critics genuinely seeking to make certain that it works for the United States should focus on identifying actual weaknesses rather than trying to portray successes as failures.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufacturing’s (Latest) Recession Looks Like It’s Over

Tags

aluminum, China, Commerce Department, Federal Reserve, Great Recession, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, manufacturing production, metals tariffs, recession, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Let’s do something a little different this time in RealityChek‘s monthly examination of the Federal Reserve’s latest domestic U.S. manufacturing output figures – which came out this morning and bring the story through December and therefore through full-year 2019 (at least preliminarily).

Instead of focusing on the industries most seriously affected by President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies (mainly the metals tariffs, given big measurement problems with the China duties), let’s look at the question of whether manufacturing remains in recession – which has big, trade war-related implications because this Trump campaign is widely blamed for many of manufacturing’s recent weakness.

There’s considerable evidence that the answer is “Yes” – that industry’s inflation-adjusted production (the measure used by the Fed) is back in growth mode, though just barely.

But the question remains an open one. That’s partly because the answer depends on which baseline date you use for the start of the manufacturing recession, which unit of time you use (along with which particular manufacturing output gauge you favor).

Among that evidence tilting toward “Yes” – today’s Fed data.  Specifically, December’s 0.16 percent monthly increase in constant dollar manufacturing output means that, since June, such production is up. Now it’s only up by 0.04 percent. But since that’s a cumulative increase over the last six months (i.e., two consecutive quarters), the technical definition of recession no longer applies.

Or does it? The same Fed figures show that, between December, 2018 and December, 2019, after-inflation manufacturing output was down – by 1.26 percent. So the recession is still on, right?

Maybe. But use another baseline – April, 2018. As RealityChek regulars know, that’s the first full month in which significant Trump tariffs went into effect (on imports of aluminum and steel). Since then, though, price-adjusted manufacturing production has grown by 0.38 percent. This result, therefore, indicates that, although the President’s trade policies seem to have delivered a hit to domestic manufacturing, it was pretty negligible, and it’s already over (at least for now).

To complicate matters still further, as RealityChek reported last July, according to the Fed’s figures, manufacturing has suffered several recessions since the current economic recovery began (in the middle of 2009).  Indeed, as of this morning, it  still hasn’t recovered from the Great Recession that began at the end of 2007!

At the same time, another set of U.S. government data support the conclusion that there has been no trade war-related manufacturing recession during the Trump years – or manufacturing recession of any kind.

These statistics come from the Commerce Department’s “GDP [Gross Domestic Output] by Industry” reports. They use the same measure used by the Fed for tracking manufacturing growth (or contraction), but they’re kept on a quarterly, not monthly, basis. As a result, these numbers aren’t issued as frequently.

Yet the latest results came out January 9, and although they stop at the third quarter of last year, they show that in real terms, domestic manufacturing under Mr. Trump never shrank on net for two straight quarters, much less over any longer time frame. Here are the quarterly change figures:

2Q 16-1Q 17 :+0.32%

1Q 17-2Q 17: -0.7%

2Q 17-3Q 17: +0.35%

3Q 17-4Q 17: +1.22%

4Q 17-1Q 18: +0.38%

1Q 18-2Q 18: +0.09%

2Q 18-3Q 18: +1.38%*

3Q 18-4Q 18: +0.38%

4Q 18-1Q 19: +0.43%

1Q 19-2Q 19: -0.38%

2Q 19-3Q 19: +0.67%

*those Trump metals tariffs began in this quarter

Indeed, what comes through loud and clear from them is that not only has there been no manufacturing recession on President Trump’s watch, but there hasn’t even been an output slowdown.

It’s always possible to point to the counter-factual – that is, in this instance, to try to figure out how matters would look without any Trump tariffs, or similar Trump efforts to transform U.S. trade policy. And it’s certainly conceivable that domestic industry would have fared even better had Trump abjured all tariffs.

But that’s not the only counter-factual. For example, what if the rest of the world had been able to deal with the pressure created by China’s steel dumping by dumping its own steel into the United States (which hasn’t happened because the Trump metal tariffs were global)? What if China itself had remained completely free to send artificially low-priced (because heavily subsidized) product into the US market? What if President Trump had kept the United States in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP), with its wide open back door for imports with lots of Chinese content, while China remained under no obligation whatever to open its market to U.S. products? It’s easy to see that U.S.-based manufacturing could have gone on the critical list.

What’s certain, however, is that according to the most authoritative data available, claims of tariffs-led disaster for U.S. manufacturing have been either much ado about nothing, or much ado about very little. Could the coming months finally bear out the worst fears of cheerleaders for pre-Trump trade policies and other globalists? Of course. But that’s simply speculation, which counts much less than facts.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is Manufacturing Employment Being Undercut by Boeing Along with Trade Wars?

Tags

737 Max, aerospace, aircraft, aluminum, Boeing, China, Jobs, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, steel, supply chain, tariffs, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of the biggest questions raised by the new (lousy) manufacturing results of this morning’s monthly U.S. jobs report concerns whether industry’s dismal recent performance is being impacted more by President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies or by Boeing’s aircraft safety woes. The bulk of the evidence released this morning seems to point to the trade wars as the continuing main culprit, but also to some Boeing-related puzzles. 

Overall, the sector lost 12,000 jobs on month in December – its worst such result (excluding October, whose figures were distorted by the General Motors strike) since August, 2016’s 23,000 decrease).  Moreover, the year-end annual manufacturing jobs gain of 46,000 was the lowest such figure since 2016’s 7,000 loss.  (For comparison’s sake, 2018’s annual manufacturing employment increase of 264,000 was the best such result since 1997’s 304,000.  

The trade wars evidence for the recent deterioration comes in the form of comparisons between the major metals-using industries during the early months following the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum, and afterwards (when many Trump critics argue that the trade curbs’ impact began sinking in). As always, the impact of Mr. Trump’s levies on imports from China remain too diffused throughout the manufacturing sector – and too unevenly so – to be gauged reliably. For good measure, they’ve also been threatened and applied in a confusing, on-and-off manner, and the recent Phase One trade deal and announcement of follow-on negotiations looks unlikely to end much of the measurement uncertainty.

First, here are the data on employment changes in those metals-using sectors from April, 2018 (the first full month during which the tariffs were in effect) through last month. Figures for the U.S. private sector overall, manufacturing overall, and manufacturing’s durable goods super-sector (in which most of the main metals users are classified) are included for comparison’s sake. Keep in mind that the results for household appliances also reflect a separate set of tariffs for large household laundry machines that have been in place since February, 2018.

                                                  Old thru Nov      New thru Nov       Thru Dec

entire private sector:                +2.82 percent      +2.81 percent    +2.92 percent

overall manufacturing:            +1.83 percent      +1.84 percent    +1.75 percent

durable goods:                         +1.99 percent      +2.02 percent    +1.94 percent

fabricated metals products:     +1.51 percent       +1.45 percent   +0.96 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +1.26 percent       +1.56 percent   +1.37 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:   -0.45 percent        -0.73 percent    -0.81 percent

household appliances*:            not available        -5.84 percent     not available

aerospace products & parts*:  not available        +9.02 percent     not available

*data are one month behind

There’s no mistaking that net new hiring in the metals-using sectors has been slower than in the rest of manufacturing and the private sector. As is clear from the table below, that’s a substantial change from the early post-metals tariffs period (presented here as April, 2018 through December, 2018 and January, 2019), when most metals-users were leaders in boosting payrolls:

                                                                Thru December           Thru January

entire private sector:                                +1.36 percent            +1.60 percent

overall manufacturing:                            +1.39 percent            +1.49 percent

durable goods:                                         +1.72 percent            +1.97 percent

fabricated metals products:                     +1.57 percent            +1.78 percent

non-electrical machinery:                        +2.33 percent           +2.57 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:                   +1.07 percent           +1.15 percent

household appliances:                              -2.05 percent –           2.52 percent

aerospace products & parts:                    +5.47 percent           +5.87 percent

But what about the Boeing effect – which figures to be considerable given the major role played by the aircraft and aerospace giant not only in American industry but the entire economy? As the data below show, the impact of the company’s production slowdown and more recent suspension of the previously best-selling but flawed 737 Max model (not to mention worldwide groundings) is anything but clear-cut. Presented here are the job change figures for aircraft and related parts industries, along with the numbers for other major supplier industries and the usual comparison sectors for the eight months preceding and following the announcement of global 737 Max groundings last March. The latest available data for the aerospace-specific industries only go through November, so that’s the final month used for the entire table.

                                                 July, 2018 thru March           March thru Nov

entire private sector:                     +1.38 percent                    +1.03 percent

overall manufacturing:                 +0.98 percent                    +0.28 percent

durable goods:                              +1.17 percent                    +0.11 percent

fabricated metals products:          +0.89 percent                     -0.31 percent

non-electrical machinery:            +1.38 percent                     -1.16 percent

aerospace products & parts:        +4.34 percent                    +2.27 percent

aircraft:                                        +6.59 percent                    +2.09 percent

aircraft engines & engine parts:  +1.04 percent                    +3.67 percent

non-engine aircraft parts/equip: +3.06 percent                     +1.22 percent

The pattern seems to show employment slowdowns nearly across the board. But the two non-aerospace-specific supplier industries – fabricated metals and non-electrical machinery – saw net hiring increases turn into net hiring decreases. Moreover, in aircraft engines and engine parts, payroll improvements actually accelerated.

At least some of this apparent paradox might result from the November end date used here. Boeing didn’t decide to suspend outright production of the troubled model until December 16, and the decision won’t even go into effect until sometime this month. Indeed, the company initially announced that no layoffs were accompanying the halt, although significant workforce reduction plans were finally made public yesterday. In this vein, reports of actual supply chain employment effects didn’t begin appearing until mid-December. Moreover, it’s possible that employment pain has been felt by the non-aerospace-specific companies in Boeing’s vast domestic supply chain before it spread to the aerospace-related firms.

So the safest bottom line so far seems to be this: Contributors to manufacturing’s recent jobs slump might now include both trade war- and non trade war-related developments. And anyone singling out one or the other deserves considerable skepticism.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New U.S. Trade Figures Validate Trump’s (Previous?) Hard Line

Tags

aircraft, Boeing, China, civilian aircraft, goods exports, goods imports, goods trade, manufacturing, merchandise exports, merchandise imports, merchandise trade, Mexico, North America, services trade, soybeans, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new U.S. monthly trade data, which bring the story up through November, are teaching President Trump and the rest of the country a crucial lesson about his total trade strategy and his approach to China trade, along with their impact on the economy as a whole. Specifically, the hard line he was pursuing with the People’s Republic before the announcement of the “Phase One” trade agreement was working like a charm.

The new numbers also make clear that many of U.S. domestic manufacturing’s troubles this year, including its mediocre trade performance, have had nothing to do with the Trump tariffs whatever – whether on Chinese products or foreign aluminum and steel. Instead, they owe to the (apparently mounting) safety woes of aircraft giant Boeing.        

The initial Phase One announcement (on October 11) revealed that the United States would hold off on an increase of tariffs from 25 percent to 30 percent on $250 billion worth of goods imports from China (largely advanced manufactures inputs) that was scheduled to go into effect on October 15. On December 13, Mr. Trump added that new levies scheduled to go into effect on December 15 on an additional $160 billion worth of merchandise imports would be canceled as well.

In return, according to the President, Beijing has agreed to “many structural changes and massive purchases of Agricultural Product, Energy, and Manufactured Goods, plus much more.” Moreover, 7.5 percent tariffs would remain on most of the rest of China’s imports along with the two governments agreeing to follow-on negotiations to address further China’s wide range of predatory trade and broader economic practices.

The new trade figures show that U.S. merchandise exports to China have indeed risen since October – by 13.69 percent month-to-month. Also up sequentially (by 21.89 percent) are total worldwide U.S. exports of soybeans – a crop whose trade performance was damaged severely by Chinese retaliatory tariffs since the latest phase of the bilateral trade war broke out.

But whether the Phase One deal and the related prospects for an enduring U.S.-China trade truce deserve much, if any, credit is open to serious doubt. For example, American goods exports to China rose sequentially four times in 2018 through September – before even the initial Phase One announcement. And two of these increases (in March and May) were bigger in percentage terms than the November improvement.

Moreover, although the November monthly shrinkage of the China’s huge bilateral goods trade surplus with the United States was substantial (15.65 percent), the surplus fell at faster rates in February and March.

Yet the cumulative success of Mr. Trump’s tariff-centric policies are clear from the new year-to-date results. On a January-through-November basis, U.S merchandise exports to China are indeed off 11.94 percent. But the much larger amount of American goods imports from China have fallen by 15.22 percent. As a result, the year-to-date merchandise trade deficit is down 16.17 percent.

Further, this progress has been made as the growth of the American global goods deficit has actually been reversed – indicating that attacking the prime source of the U.S. worldwide goods deficit is indeed helping address the global shortfall effectively.

On a year-to-date basis, the global goods deficit is down fractionally. If the trend continues for a month more, the merchandise trade gap will have narrowed on an annual basis for the first time since 2013 – a year during which the overall economy grew at a considerably slower pace (1.8 percent after inflation) than it’s been growing this year (well in excess of two percent so far in real terms).

Much of this improvement is due to America’s emergence as an oil trade surplus country (which has almost nothing to do with trade deals or other elements of trade policy, since oil trade is rarely directly affected by trade policy decisions). Yet the massive U.S. global deficits in goods other than oil have been shrinking steadily since August – from $72.75 billion that month to $63.82 billion in November, the lowest monthly total since June, 2018).

Just as important, the makeup of the remaining American merchandise deficit is becoming concentrated in North America – which benefits the United States significantly, since Mexico’s economic problems in particular often become America’s problems. And year-to-date, the total U.S. goods deficit with North America (Canada and Mexico), widened by 27.05 percent, led by a 27.64 percent rise in the Mexico gap.

Nonetheless, the merchandise deficit with Pacific Rim countries excluding China has grown by 22.47 percent year-to-date, so much more regionalization progress can clearly be made.

In other important developments revealed by today’s November trade report, the monthly U.S. combined goods and services deficit shrank sequentially by 8.31 percent to $43.09 billion from a downwardly adjusted $46.94 billion. The November figure was the lowest monthly total since October, 2016 ($42.00 billion).

November’s $63.90 billion global goods deficit (which includes oil) also represented its lowest level since October, 2016 ($62.02 billion).

Yet U.S. services trade continued to experience a weak year, as the surplus decreased sequentially in November (by 0.19 percent) and is running 4.72 below 2018’s total so far.

Total U.S. exports advanced by 0.66 percent on month in November, but are so far down fractionally on a year-to-date basis. (During the previous January-through-November period, they’d risen by 6.98 percent.)

Total U.S. imports dropped by 0.98 percent sequentially in November, and so far are down 0.14 percent year-to-date. (During the previous January-through-November period, they’d increased by 8.20 percent.)

Encouraging news came on the manufacturing trade front, too, as this sector’s enormous, longstanding deficit fell on month by 12.70 percent, to $80.93 billion. That was the lowest monthly level since March’s $76.96 billion and the biggest monthly percentage drop since February’s 20.00 percent.

U.S. manufactures exports declined by 3.81 percent on month in November, but the much greater amount of imports sank by 8.16 percent.

Year-to-date through November, the manufacturing trade deficit is up 1.69 percent – from $935.74 billion to $951.55 billion. In other words, another $1 trillion annual trade deficit is almost certainly in store for U.S. domestic manufacturing.

At the same time, this rate of increase is much slower than that from the same period in the year before: 10.98 percent.

In addition, this manufacturing progress has been recorded despite a major deterioration in U.S. civilian aircraft trade fueled undoubtedly and largely by the safety problems experienced by Boeing. 

The company – America’s only producer of wide-body civilian jetliners – has long been a major export and trade surplus champion.  But U.S. exports of civilian aircraft dropped by 5.77 percent on month in November, and have nosedived by fully 21.77 percent year-to-date.  Civilian craft imports declined at an even faster rate sequentially in November – fully 39.59 percent.  But the numbers are much smaller, and year-to-date through November, they’ve soared by 19.39 percent.

As a result, the U.S. civilian aircraft trade surplus last year through November stood at only $27.22 billion.  That’s a 33.02 percent plunge from 2018’s comparable total of  $40.64 billion.  And it means that, all else equal, if this sector’s 2019 trade performance simply equalled that of the year before, the overall manufacturing trade deficit would have barely grown at all.   

 

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy): The Real Private Sector’s Job Creation is Lagging Again

Tags

Employment, healthcare services, Jobs, private sector, real private sector, subsidized private sector, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although President Trump may not like America’s current healthcare system much, lately it’s been keeping his own economic record in solid shape – not to mention and bolstering his reelection chances. The evidence? Robust employment creation in the nation’s enormous healthcare services sector this year has been almost singlehandedly responsible for keeping job growth in the respectable range, and for strengthening the case that he’s steered the economy ably.

Unfortunately, the big 2019 relative rebound in payrolls in healthcare services and the rest of what I’ve long called the subsidized private sector is less good news for the economy itself. For the huge scale of these positions says much more about the government largesse on which their existence depends than about the state of the nation’s economic fundamentals – the market forces that drive employment in what can be called the economy’s real private sector, and that are supposed to be the keys to long-term national prosperity.

In fact, the figures for 2019 – which now cover its first eleven months – show that whereas the subsidized private sector’s profile in the U.S. labor market had been receding during the first two years of the Trump administration, this year it returned to levels not seen since the early days of the current (record-length) economic recovery. And consequently, the real private sector’s performance has revealed new weakness.

Specifically, from January-through-November 2011 (when the economy settled into normal expansion mode after the typically strong short-term bounceback from an unusually deep recession) through the comparable 2016 period, the subsidized private sector’s share of total gains in “nonfarm employment” (the U.S. Labor Department’s definition of the American jobs universe) grew from 19.35 percent to 25.87 percent. And its share of employment increases in the total, conventionally defined private sector itself, increased from 16.71 percent in 2011 to 36.88 percent in 2016.

By Mr. Trump’s second year in office, healthcare services and other subsidized private sector employment had sunk to 18.96 percent of total nonfarm job creation and 24.55 percent of total private sector job creation.

But what a difference a year has made! For the first eleven months of 2019, fully 30.96 percent of all U.S. jobs created have come in the subsidized private sector, and these industries accounted for more than half (50.75 percent) of private sector job creation. The former figure was the economy’s highest since 2010 (when it hit 32.78 percent), and the latter’s the highest since 2016 (when it hit 58.43 percent).

The Trump record isn’t entirely discouraging if you’re a fan of real private sector job creation – and you should be if you believe (as you should) that the predominance of market forces represents the economy’s best hope for sustainable prosperity. For the pace of public sector hiring has definitely waned over the last three years – and not only in relative terms. During the final three January-through-November periods of the Obama administration, government was adding an annual average of 140,000 jobs. During the first three such periods under Mr. Trump, the annual average is down to 110,000 (though it’s been on the upswing since 2017).

Yet if levels of government spending are the driving forces in both cases, is the relationship between the public sector and the subsidized private sector a distinction without a difference?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So You Think Trade is an Engine of Productivity Growth?

Tags

economics, economists, European Central Bank, exports, free trade, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, International Monetary Fund, labor productivity, productivity, productivity growth, total factor productivity, Trade, trade openness, World Bank, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The idea that the more international trade a country engages in, the more strongly its productivity will grow, is widely accepted among economists. Indeed, no less than the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank (the eurozone’s version of America’s Federal Reserve) say so.

How then, can these august institutions and other believers explain the following: On the one hand according to the United Kingdom’s Royal Statistical Society, the country’s feeble annual average labor productivity growth of 0.3 percent over the last ten years was its “statistic of the decade”? Worse, it was the poorest decade for British productivity growth since the early 19^th century.

Yet on the other hand, during this period, the United Kingdom’s openness to foreign trade – a data point created by adding a country’s imports and exports and then expressing this sum as a percentage of its entire economy, or gross domestic product (GDP) – has for the most part been hovering near post-1960s highs. In other words, the more foreign trade the UK has been engaging in, the lower its productivity growth seems to have become.

Nor is this phenomenon restricted to the UK. The same pattern can be seen in the United States, although the country’s openness to trade is much lower than the United Kingdom’s in absolute terms (not surprising, since we’re comparing an island with a continental sized economy). RealityChek regulars shouldn’t have to be reminded about America’s discouraging collapse in labor productivity growth.

What about trade? In fairness, America’s openness to trade has been falling recently. But no, that’s not President Trump’s “fault.” The decline began in 2011, when trade’s share of GDP hit a post-1960 high of 30.79 percent. As of 2017 (the latest data year available according to this source), it still stood at 27.09 percent – much higher than the period average of 19.29 percent.   

Also in fairness: Simply because openness to trade for these two big national economies has coincided with lousy productivity growth doesn’t mean that openness to trade causes the problem (or vice versa). It doesn’t even mean that openness to trade is the main productivity culprit, for many different characteristics of an economy influence any single characteristic.

But certainly in light of the American and British experiences, even if the conventional wisdom is right and trade openness does encourage productivity growth, it’s clearly a policy choice that’s often overwhelmed by other features of that same economy. P.S. – it ain’t just the Anglo-Americans. The World Bank’s databases also portray global trade at only slightly off its all-time high as a share of the global economy. And guess what? It turns out that global productivity growth has been crappy lately, too, whether we’re talking labor productivity or total factor productivity (a broader gauge that measures output from the use of many different inputs, not just labor).

As a matter of fact, it’s not difficult to think of ways in which more trade can undermine productivity growth – e.g., if import floods decimate the sectors of the economy that have historically been its manufacturing leaders, or if trade policy fosters their offshoring. (Strong cases can be made for both propositions when it comes to American domestic manufacturing.) 

So the case that trade fosters productivity growth is hardly a slam dunk.  And that’s one more reason to believe that the broader case for free trade isn’t, either.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: GM and Boeing Effects Still Affecting U.S. Manufacturing Output

Tags

737 Max, aircraft, aluminum, Boeing, China, durable goods, Federal Reserve, General Motors General Motors strike, GM, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, manufacturing production, metals-using industries, steel, supply chain, tariffs, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Like its immediate predecessor, this morning’s Federal Reserve release on inflation-adjusted U.S. manufacturing output made clear how the recent strike at General Motors have grossly distorted the latest results, as well as how Boeing’s mounting 737 Max aircraft safety woes remain difficult to identify from these production statistics.

First, let’s look at the overall numbers. According to the Fed, constant dollar American manufacturing output in November jumped sequentially by 1.15 percent. That was the best such increase since October, 2017’s 1.36 percent, and quite the turnaround from October’s 0.70 percent monthly drop-off (which was revised slightly downward).

These figures still left domestic industry in a recession, but not much of one. Since July, 2018, its price-adjusted output is down by 0.14 percent.

But the big role of the GM strike’s end in November’s turnaround couldn’t be clearer. In October, combined U.S. combined vehicle and parts output sank by 5.98 percent after inflation from September’s total. That decline was considerably less than the 7.65 percent nosedive reported last month, but still the worst such performance since the 7.18 percent decrease in January.

Last month, however, thanks to the return of the striking workers, real automotive production skyrocketed by a whopping 12.45 percent – the best monthly performance since the 29.95 percent surge of July, 2009 – as the last recession (which was especially woeful for auto and parts makers) came to an end.

Another way to look at the automotive effect: Without the GM strike, October’s 0.70 percent overall manufacturing after-inflation production decrease would have been a much better (but by no means great) 0.28 percent decline. And without the GM strike’s end, the 1.15 percent jump in price-adjusted manufacturing output would have been only 0.25 percent.

But the impact of Boeing’s safety troubles is as unclear as those of the GM strike are obvious. In November, American aircraft and parts production rose another 0.40 percent on month in real terms. Moreover, since March (when governments around the world began grounding the 737 Max or banning it from their airspace), such production is only down a total of 0.34 percent. Since April (the first full data month since that March flood of bad news), it’s actually up by 2.32 percent.

Therefore, as has been the case recently, the aircraft sector as such has kept outgrowing many of the biggest industries making up its domestic supply chain (which extends way beyond finished parts and into the materials they’re made from). Here’s how these big supplier industries’ output has changed since April, with the overall manufacturing sector’s performance and that of the durable goods super-category in which most are found included for comparison’s sake:

overall manufacturing: +0.68 percent

durable goods: +1.25 percent

primary metals: -1.13 percent

fabricated metals products: -0.54 percent

machinery: +0.16 percent

The above results also indicate that at least some of the economy’s biggest metals-using industries still lack the relative production strength they displayed for the first several months after steel and aluminum tariffs were imposed in March, 2018. Here are their latest numbers from April (the first full data month affected by these levies) through November, also with the overall manufacturing and durable goods results included:

                                          Old Ape thru Oct    New Apr thru Oct    April thru Nov

overall manufacturing: –      0.54 percent            -0.81 percent         +0.33 percent

durables manufacturing:    -0.32 percent            -0.40 percent         +1.75 percent

fabricated metals prods:   +1.42 percent           +1.26 percent         +1.48 percent

machinery:                        -0.81 percent            -0.77 percent          -1.02 percent

automotive:                    -12.24 percent           -11.34 percent          -0.30 percent

major appliances:             -9.14 percent            -9.08 percent          -6.31 percent

aircraft and parts:            +3.59 percent           +4.37 percent         +4.79 percent

One interesting bright spot apparent from the above – a nice improvement for production of major appliances, a sector that’s been dealing since February, 2018 with an additional set of product-specific tariffs. But in machinery and fabricated metals products in particular, where output tends to be less volatile than it’s been in automotive and appliances, recent performance clearly has been worse than that from April, 2018 through, say, this past January:

                                                          April, 2018 through January

overall manufacturing:                               +1.07 percent

durables manufacturing:                            +1.74 percent

fabricated metals prods:                            +3.42 percent

machinery:                                                +3.69 percent

automotive:                                               -3.32 percent

major appliances:                                      -1.43 percent

aircraft and parts:                                     +4.19 percent

Will the new “Phase One” trade deal announced with China make it any easier to gauge the impact of tariffs on most of the imports heading to the United States from the PRC? That’s already been difficult enough, because Chinese products have been used so widely, and to such varying extents, as inputs for so many manufacturing industries). And chances are this challenge will become more difficult, given both that it’s far from clear when follow-on talks will begin; and given Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s suggestion that the next phase may consist of many different phases.

Surely adding to the complications will be the Boeing effect, which seems certain to start appearing more conspicuously in the data now that the company has announced that 737 Max production will be suspended starting next month, as well as its failure to say how long the halt will last.

So just about all that can be said for sure is that domestic manufacturing had a good month in November – however unclear it remains whether this improvement has legs.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: China’s Leadership Touted in (Wait for It)…Safe Products Manufacturing

Tags

China, Consumer Products Safety Commission, CPSC, Delta Childrens, Phase One, product safety, Rachel Siegel, trade deal, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I was tempted to describe as screamingly funny the latest Mainstream Media report describing the supposedly indescribable pain that U.S. imports from China in critical industries will keep facing following the new “Phase One” trade deal with the People’s Republic – and from the increases or new levies that could result if Beijing violates the terms.

Except any article dealing with the safety of products imported from China isn’t at all funny, especially considering that they can be killers, and that their victims have included children.

The piece in question: a report from Washington Post correspondent Rachel Siegel. Along with her editors, she evidently thinks that the U.S. economy will struggle to withstand the blow dealt by the ongoing tariff uncertainty confronting the classic toys sector. But on top of obsessing over the challenges facing producers (in China) of Lincoln Logs and My Little Pony, the Post crew responsible for the piece also delivered a world class jaw dropper by quoting the owner of a children’s furniture company who insists that “he can’t just relocate production to another country because he relies on China’s infrastructure to guarantee his products are safe.”

This depiction of China as the global capital of safe consumer goods production is literally gobsmacking.  After all, children’s and other consumer products from China generally are still considered so potentially dangerous that the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission maintains a special website page listing product recalls from China. This past October’s entries alone (the latest figures available) numbered seven.

Nor has the company Siegel singled out – Delta Children, a New York City-based manufacturer of baby and kids furniture – escaped these problems. In 2008, some 1.6 million cribs it made in China, Indonesia, and Taiwan were pulled from stores because one of their features posed an entrapment and suffocation hazard for infants – and because two babies had been killed by this defect.

The recall didn’t solve the problem, either, for in 2010, Delta voluntarily recalled more than 747,000 additional cribs (including products made in China) after dozens of reports had been received of malfunctions and injuries (fortunately none of them serious).

And just two years ago, the company issued a smaller scale recall – for 28,000 strollers capable of breaking and injuring children.

Delta is hardly the only business that’s manufactured dangerous products in China, and there’s no evidence I’ve seen that it’s among the worst perpetrators. But the claim that producing in China is essential for producing safe goods for American consumers has to be a new low in self-serving bunkum – and indeed in dangerously self-serving bunkum. Or does that distinction goes to the journalist and her editors who parroted it?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Latest Details Still Don’t Justify Trump’s China Trade Deal

Tags

agriculture, China, Clyde V. Prestowitz, dispute resolution, enforcement, managed trade, manufacturing, Phase One, trade deal, trade war, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, USTR Rpbert :Lighthizer, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because the Trump administration has for some reason been putting out the specifics on its new “Phase One” trade deal with China in dribs and drabs, information has come out since Friday’s post panning the agreement suggesting that it might be better than first impressions indicated. At the same time, the case for continued skepticism still looks considerably stronger.

Grounds for optimism can be seen in the Fact Sheet on the deal put out late Friday afternoon by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). Most promising: This administration indicates that the President has finally adopted a strategy urged by me last month, originally articulated by former U.S. trade negotiator Clyde V. Prestowitz, Jr. back in the 1980s, and oddly endorsed by a former senior Chinese official recently – in an interview he would never have given had he not been certain that Beijing would at least receptive.

The strategy has been denigrated by critics as “managed trade” – a supposedly foolhardy departure from the standard free trade approach followed by pre-Trump Presidents. Rather than trying to persuade foreign governments to open their markets to American exports and put in effect other free market practices, managed trade seeks to persuade foreign governments to reduce their surpluses with the United States by boosting their purchases by designated amounts. The big advantage: Managed trade efforts permit negotiators to avoid getting bogged down in philosophical debates about the virtues of economic liberalism, or in mudslinging matches over which economies are “fair” and “unfair.” Instead, they focus on unemotional bargaining over numbers. In addition, as Prestowitz has noted (and the senior Chinese official recently confirmed), Asian governments in particular are much more comfortable haggling over “how much” than preaching ethics and other intangibles.

The President’s interest in managed trade has been evident since he began pushing the Chinese to resume by certain amounts blocked purchases of soybeans and other agricultural commodities. But according to the Fact Sheet, China has not only consented to hit specific targets in its imports of farm products and energy goods like natural gas. (USTR Robert Lighthizer on Friday told reporters that Chinese farm products imports would rise over the next two years by a total of some $16 billion a year over the 2017 figure of $24 billion.) Beijing has also committed to “import various U.S. goods and services [including the agricultural buys] over the next two years in a total amount that exceeds China’s annual level of imports for those goods and services in 2017 by no less than $200 billion.” Even better, these purchases will include manufactures.

If these promises are kept, the massive U.S. merchandise trade deficit with China will shrink considerably, and American output and employment will grow. And the greater the share of manufactured products in this total, the higher quality the growth and the better the jobs.

But what will the manufacturing numbers be? Lighthizer has said that broad target figures will be released. But if it can already quantify China’s pledges to boost agriculture imports, why not for industry? Is it because Chinese promises in these areas haven’t been nailed down? And what’s the deal with the reference to targets? Does it mean that China is free to fall short for certain reasons? For any reasons?

Lighthizer explained the failure to divulge more detailed, product-by-product numbers even for agriculture by pointing to the need to “avoid distorting markets.” On the one hand, this worry isn’t unreasonable. On the other, the secrecy won’t make it any easier for any Americans without a vested political stake in claiming victory or success to assess progress with any precision.

More ominously, Lighthizer said that China would be free to buy things when “it’s the perfect time in the market to buy things.” That sounds suspiciously like the objection China originally raised when pressed to buy more farm products as part of the Phase One deal – i.e., purchases that ignored levels of Chinese domestic demand would make no economic sense, “might be hard for the domestic market to digest,” and would sharply depress local prices.

Of course, the response to these points needs to be that China has never let free market forces interfere with its mercantile trade policy goals before. Therefore, this is no time to start swallowing this kind of excuse. Indeed, if Beijing is so worried about supporting the prices received by local producers for any good, it can keep them off the market by stuffing the excess imports into warehouses. That’s not America’s problem.

Unfortunately, the Lighthizer statement indicates that the Trump administration has decided to accept this bogus Chinese rationale – which threatens to permit China to insist indefinitely that the time just isn’t ripe to buy all those extra American products called for in the deal. And with China’s growth likely to slow further for the foreseeable future, expect this claim to be trotted out frequently.

Also suspicious: If the United States has secured Chinese agreement to ramp up agriculture imports greatly, why did the agreement need to address “a multitude of [Chinese] non-tariff barriers to U.S. agriculture and seafood products…including for meat, poultry, seafood, rice, dairy, infant formula, horticultural products, animal feed and feed additives, pet food, and products of agriculture biotechnology.”

After all, as long as the promised results keep coming in for American agricultural producers, who cares what Chinese trade barriers remain officially in place? And if the U.S. team did bother to negotiate these provisions to ensure adequate market access for U.S.-based producers once the two years apparently covered by the agreement run out, then this is more a temporary fix than a big win for the American sectors affected.

What about the other structural issues – the intellectual property theft, the technology extortion, and other predatory Chinese practices that threaten both American national security as well as prosperity? The Fact Sheet remains distressingly vague.

For the former, we’re told only that the agreement “addresses numerous longstanding concerns.”

For the latter, the administration claims the establishment of “binding and enforceable obligations to address several of the unfair technology transfer practices of China that were identified” by its prior investigation of Chinese economic predation.” These entail Chinese agreement to end demanding cutting edge knowhow in return for access to the Chinese market and other benefits, and a Chinese commitment “to provide transparency, fairness, and due process in administrative proceedings and to have technology transfer and licensing take place on market terms.”

But how will these Chinese promises be monitored and enforced? How will “transparency, fairness, and due process” be defined?

And speaking of enforcement, it’s encouraging that the agreement “establishes strong procedures for addressing disputes related to the agreement” and in particular “allows each party to take proportionate responsive actions that it deems appropriate.”

Yet how long will it take for the procedures to reach the point at which Washington gains the right to punish Chinese violations with tariffs? One major criticism of the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been that many years often have passed between the initial filing of complaints till judgments were handed down determining that transgressions had indeed taken place, and authorizing tariffs unless the offending actions were halted. Although the Face Sheet promises resolving disputes “expeditiously,” it’s far from clear yet that the Phase One arrangements will be able to achieve this goal.

In addition, will Beijing enjoy similar authority to determine American violations of Phase One, and to levy punitive tariffs if it’s “deemed appropriate” by China? Moreover, whenever either side concludes that a violation has taken place, what in the agreement, if anything, will prevent the other side from retaliating.

And if the answer is “nothing,” then how would post-Phase One U.S.-China economic relations differ from those relations today – since each country would appear to be as free legally speaking as it is now practically speaking to deal with problems it blames on the other however it wishes, and to respond to any resulting tariffs with whatever countermeasures it chooses? 

The Phase One deal is no cave-in to China, as many have claimed. The high tariffs remaining on most products imported from China belie that description. Nor does it matter whether China’s dictators believe they’ve outwitted or intimidated Mr. Trump, and therefore that they can keep resisting his demands for improved behavior – since the towering obstacles will prevent adequately verifying even the most forthcoming Chinese promises of reform. 

Instead, the deal is mainly a lost opportunity; indeed a big one. Moreover, it raises the crucial question of when the President will finally start downplaying – at least – the consequently futile efforts to negotiate a better trade and broader economic relationship between the United States and China, and start emphasizing the need to keep moving down the road toward what should be the overriding goal of decoupling.