(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Valentine’s Day Bust for Tariff Alarmists

Tags

aluminum, inflation, Labor Department, manufacturing, metals, metals-using industries, PPI, Producer Price Index, producer prices, steel, tariffs, Trade, wholesale prices, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If trade alarmists and tariff fear-mongers were hoping for a Valentine’s Day gift from Thursday’s producer price inflation report, they’re now nursing broken hearts. For the new numbers from the Labor Department continue the string of official data releases showing that President Trump’s trade curbs on imports of metals and various goods from China have generated no significant inflationary pressure in the economy overall. Indeed, there’s only the scantest evidence that they’ve created upward price pressure even in the products most directly affected.

As has been the case for months for this Producer Price Index (PPI) data – along with the statistics on consumer prices – the most reliable figures are the Trump tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, because they’ve been in place since March. But when it comes to the producer price results – which look at the economy from the wholesale sector’s standpoint – it’s worth examining the China-related data as well, since the first tariffs on producer goods from China were imposed in July. (P.S.: Keep in mind that the new statistics, which bring the story up to January, incorporate an annual set of revisions that in this case impact the seasonally adjusted numbers going back to 2014).

Prices for steel remain elevated through, January, but increases have lost noteworthy momentum. True, they rose sequentially in January by 0.50 percent and their initially reported monthly decline of 0.63 percent in December was revised to a 0.18 percent dip. Moreover, steel prices have risen by 11.02 percent since April – the first full month they were in effect. By contrast, the super-category in the PPI report in which they’re placed – processed goods minus foods and feeds – saw its prices decline by 0.55 percent during that period.

But most of the steel price increases took place over the summer. Since September, they’re down 1.20 percent. That’s not nearly as big a fall-off as for their super-category overall (where prices were off by 3.83 percent during this period). But it’s a decrease nonetheless.

Upon moving to aluminum prices, however, the notion that tariffs have been mainly behind these high and still rising prices breaks down completely – because aluminum pricing trends have been so completely different.

Whereas wholesale steel prices increased on-month in December, wholesale aluminum prices fell – by an unrevised 0.40 percent. Both metals registered a 0.50 percent sequential price rise in January.

But aluminum’s period of strong pricing power was considerably shorter than steel’s, and ended in June. And since that month, they’re down by 6.40 percent. That’s almost double the price slump experienced by its core processed goods super-category (the same as steel’s) – 3.37 percent. So something other than tariffs clearly has been driving the price movements of these metals on the wholesale level.

Important divergences also appear in the data for metals-using industries. Last month, for example, we found that prices for sectors like pumps, compressors, and related equipment; mining machinery and equipment; construction machinery and equipment; and metal-forming machine tools, rose faster on month than prices in their super-category – final demand goods minus food and energy.

In January, these trends continued for construction machinery and that machine tools sector. But the new monthly increases for other metals-using sectors, like agricultural machinery and equipment (0.21 percent), metal-cutting machine tools 0.30 percent), industrial materials handling equipment (0.17 percent), and machine tool parts and mold-making equipment (flat), were considerably weaker, and completely in line or softer than the latest monthly price increase for the core final demand goods category (0.26 percent). That’s significant given recent solid output growth for the entire manufacturing sector, and especially the durable goods industries that rely heavily on metals as inputs.

Nonetheless, increases pushed through earlier in the year helped most metals-using sectors produce price hikes on a January-to-January basis considerably stronger than that for the core final demand goods super-category (2.40 percent).

Switch over to “intermediate demand” goods and you find mixed results, too. Big annual price hikes have been seen in sectors like metal containers, fabricated wire products, and certain kinds of valves (for January, 5.58 percent, 15.56 percent, and 5.77 percent, respectively). These increases all exceeded that for their core intermediate demand super-category (0.97 percent). Yet they were all lower than the December figures (6.46 percent, 16.42 percent, and 6.03 percent). (The intermediates super-category figure was 3.29 percent for that month.) So some inflation momentum has been lost.

Since the metals tariffs were imposed, prices of metal containers have risen 2.01 percent, prices of fabricated wire products have risen 10.16 percent, and prices of those valves are 2.82 percent higher. All these inflation rates are much faster than that of the intermediate demand super-category (where prices overall fell 0.55 percent during that period). But as with the annual figures, they vary considerably, with the wire products sticking out like an especially sore thumb.

The first Trump China tariffs weren’t imposed until early July, so the sample size is smaller. But the case for tariff-led wholesale inflation on this front is just as weak as in the metals-related sectors.

The evidence for tariffs-led producer price inflation is much weaker for goods imported from China – perhaps because the levies haven’t been in place for nearly as long as the metals tariffs. The table below shows the PPI changes for some of the leading products found on the Trump administration’s initial China tariff list. They were imposed on July 6, so the numbers show the cumulative price changes since August. (Note: Because the administration’s Trump announcement used a different classification system than that used in the PPI reports, the below data don’t match up exactly with that tariff list. But the following goods are all at the least main parts of the items on the Trump list, or vice versa. The same holds for the super-category figures used, as with metals tariff-related products, for comparison’s sake.)

                                                                                  Aug.-Dec.            Aug.-Jan.

core processed goods for intermediate demand:   -0.88 percent       -2.50 percent

aircraft engines and engine parts:                         +0.04 percent      +0.44 percent

ball bearings:                                                         +1.01 percent     +1.24 percent

electric generators:                                                +1.61 percent     +1.66 percent

medical, surgical & personal aid devices:            +0.34 percent      +0.93 percent

core commodity final demand                              +0.64 percent      +1.13 percent

industrial heating equipment:                               +1.79 percent      +2.41 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:                              0 percent              0 percent

farm machinery and equipment:                           +2.26 percent      +2.55 percent

paper-making machinery:                                     +0.31 percent      +0.52 percent

electricity transformers:                                        +0.12 percent      +0.68 percent

medical, surgical, and personal aid devices:         +0.33 percent      +0.93 percent

X-ray and electro-medical equipment:                  +0.12 percent     +0.37 percent

In a phrase, these results are all over the place – strongly indicating that the tariffs have not been the leading cause of their price changes. The only consistent pattern suggesting a notable tariff effect emerges after comparing the August-December and August-January results. In the core intermediate demand grouping, prices dropped at a faster pace between the two periods. But for the China-related goods, they rose, albeit at different rates.

In the core final demand grouping, prices rose at a faster pace for the super-category, and for all the specific goods within it except for oil and gas drilling platform parts. Interestingly, though, the acceleration for two other sectors – farm machinery and equipment and paper-making machinery – was slower than for the super-category as a whole. In addition, during the latest, August-to-January, period, prices for no less than five of the seven sectors rose more slowly than for the super-category for a whole – again signaling the strong influence of non-tariff factors.

America’s globalist elites haven’t lost credibility solely or even mainly because of trade policy. But that’s surely been part of the mix. And if they want to start regaining some, they might think about admitting that facts really do matter, and that scarcely any of them support their tariff fear-mongering.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New Manufacturing Output Data Belie Tariff Fear-Mongering Yet Again

Tags

aluminum, China, Federal Reserve, imports, industrial production, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, metals, metals-using industries, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Tariff fear-mongers must have felt a shiver of excitement when today’s new industrial production report came out from the Federal Reserve. For the results showed the inflation-adjusted manufacturing output shrank in January by 0.90 percent – the third sequential decline since the first Trump administration metals tariffs went into effect, and the second since the first round of its China tariffs went into effect. Surely these figures made clear that their claims of the levies hurting American manufacturing were finally coming true! Even better, from their standpoint, revisions were slightly negative.

What a shame to report then that an examination of those always crucial internals demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the trade curbs have had nothing to do with any trouble industry may (or may not) be running into. The evidence? The continuing excellent results registered by metals-using industries, and mixed figures for the much smaller number of sectors where the impact of the first China tariffs (whose first full month was only last August) can reliably be measured.

Here are the changes in real production for the major metals-using industries starting with April – the first full month during which these sectors had to deal with the levies. The table shows the previously reported data for December, the new December data, and the January figures. (All these statistics, it should be noted, are still preliminary.) And they would challenge even the cleverest D.C.-based spin-meister to construct a narrative supporting the popular Twitter hashtag #TariffsHurt:

                                                         old thru Dec.      new thru Dec.       thru Jan.

overall manufacturing:                   +2.02 percent      +2.11 percent   +1.20 percent

durables manufacturing:                +3.31 percent      +3.45 percent   +1.65 percent

fabricated metals products:            +2.05 percent      +2.82 percent   +3.19 percent

machinery:                                     +4.93 percent      +4.38 percent   +3.87 percent

automotive:                                    +3.36 percent      +3.93 percent    -5.18 percent

major appliances:                           +0.08 percent      +3.13 percent    -2.87 percent

aircraft and parts:                           +6.80 percent      +6.14 percent   +6.35 percent

As has been the case almost consistently since the trade curbs on steel and aluminum went into effect, most of the industries relying especially heavily on these metals have actually out-performed the rest of manufacturing. And the struggles indicated here of sectors like automotive and major appliances sure spring from developments distinctive to those sectors – in automotive, major recent volatility (which has also led to major recent revisions) and in appliances, a separate set of levies on large household laundry machines that went into effect in February. The above figures, moreover, even point to volatility in appliance production.

It’s more difficult to gauge the impact of the China tariffs because the first (relatively minor) tranche has been in effect for a much shorter period, and because the levies were based on a system for classifying manufacturing that’s different from the system used in the Fed’s industrial production reports (as well as most major federal government data). So matching up industries is a daunting task, and the more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that even the short list of sectors I presented last month for the December industrial production report contained too many industries where the match-up simply wasn’t close enough to be useful.

Below, therefore, are the only the sectors for which I think it’s possible to draw any firm conclusions, along with the total manufacturing results as a control figure. This highly limited sample shows the latest after-inflation growth rates from August (again, the first full months the first China tariffs were in effect) through December, and through January. And the only consistent trend visible here is volatility.

                                                                       Aug.-Dec.                    Aug.-Jan.

overall manufacturing:                              +1.26 percent              +0.36 percent

ball bearings:                                             +0.02 percent               -0.09 percent

industrial heating equipment:                    +5.19 percent              -3.86 percent

farm machinery and equipment:                +2.50 percent              +9.12 percent

As the next few months pass, it will be possible to examine usefully the China tariffs’ impact on more and more manufacturing sectors. To date, however, the grade is “incomplete” (at best). As for the effects of the steel tariffs, though, isn’t it time to consider putting that #TariffsHurt hashtag way out to pasture?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Tariffs-Led Inflation, Where are You?

Tags

aluminum, China, consumer price index, CPI, inflation, Labor Department, metals, metals-using industries, producer prices, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re a baby-boomer or a fan of old sitcoms, you know the show Car 54, Where Are You? It came to mind as I was examining the new consumer price inflation data that came out of the Labor Department this morning. Because these consumer price index (CPI) should make the country’s tariff-mageddon-mongers ask, in an equally plaintive tone, “Tariffs-led inflation where are you?” That is, the results at best offer scarcely any evidence that the Trump trade levies are eating away much at American shoppers’ buying power.

As usual, let’s first look over the statistics for metals-using industries, because they’ve been dealing with tariffs on steel and aluminum since late March, when they were first imposed. The table below compares price changes for their products with price changes for overall “core inflation” (which excludes food and energy prices, supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons that have little to do with whatever overall upward or downward general pricing pressures are shaping the economy). For good measure, I’ve included related products in an effort to distinguish between price changes due to fluctuating metals costs, and price changes due to costs of other materials or substances in the product in question – e.g., fresh produce and canned produce.

And as RealityChek regulars will notice, I’ve not only included autos and parts here, but added appliances and some other metals-using goods.

As for the dates, they cover the latest monthly price changes (through January), the changes from April (the metals tariffs’ first full month) through January, the year-on-year changes for April, and the year-on-year changes for January. The last two are probably the best measures of whether the impact of the trade curbs has been intensifying – for better or worse.

                                      Dec.-Jan.       Since April         y/y April           y/y Jan.

core CPI:                  +0.24 percent   +1.67 percent   +2.12 percent   +2.15 percent

fresh fruits                 -0.19 percent   +0.07 percent   -0.43 percent   +1.25 percent

& vegs:

fresh fruits:                +1.14 percent   -0.28 percent   +1.38 percent   -0.74 percent

fresh vegetables:         -1.66 percent  +3.01 percent    -2.50 percent  +3.64 percent

processed fruits           -0.88 percent   -0.64 percent   -1.29 percent    -0.46 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits:              -0.05 percent   +0.94 percent   -0.14 percent   +0.70 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits:              -1.59 percent    -0.56 percent    -1.60 percent   +0.35 percent

canned vegs:              +0.45 percent    +1.44 percent  +1.00 percent   +1.11 percent

soups:                         +0.34 percent    +0.80 percent   -0.38 percent   -0.81 percent

malt beverages           +0.07 percent    +1.66 percent  +0.84 percent  +2.23 percent

at home:

alcoholic                      -0.04 percent    +1.34 percent  +2.17 percent  +2.25 percent

beverages away:

non-frozen, non-         +1.32 percent    +2.45 percent   -0.52 percent  +1.80 percent

-carbonated non-

alcoholic rinks:

carbonated drinks:       +2.08 percent   +4.92 percent  +0.04 percent  +5.53 percent

juices & non-               +1.84 percent   +3.39 percent   -0.26 percent  +3.31 percent

alcoholic drinks:

new cars & trucks:       +0.22 percent   +0.93 percent   -1.61 percent +0.06 percent

motor vehicle               +0.33 percent   +1.92 percent   -0.74 percent +2.12 percent

parts:

appliances:                   +1.36 percent   +4.56 percent   +0.27 percent +6.43 percent

major appliances:         +0.99 percent  +7.47 percent  +1.55 percent  +9.66 percent

non-electric                  +0.67 percent   -0.84 percent   -1.57 percent  +3.59 percent

cookware & tableware:

tools, hardware,            +0.98 percent  +0.77 percent  +0.19 percent  +1.57 percent

outdoor equipment:

The two sets of year-on-year figures do reveal some evidence of hotter inflation in metals-using products between April and January. Also apparent, however, is accelerating inflation in several of the non-canned versions of these products. As has been the case in previous months, prices change for all sorts of reasons; tariffs are only one and nothing indicates that, generally speaking, they stand out.

The evidence is more mixed for other food sectors that offer lots of canned products, like soups and beverages. The trouble is, they also offer lots of products in other kinds of containers or packages. So tariff alarmists can point to the beverages as examples of prices rising at a faster annual pace since the metals levies were imposed. But when it comes to soup, prices have been falling at a faster pace.

Moreover, if the metals tariffs have been so important, why is January year-on-year inflation for all three of the canned products so much lower than January year-on-year overall core inflation?

Moving away from foods, faster inflation can also be seen in automotive products, appliances, cookware and tableware, and tools and hardware. But as with some of the food categories, the January-January inflation rate for the tools section is below that for the economy’s “core” overall, and appliance prices also have been affected by a separate set of tariffs slapped on large household laundry machines last February. So consumer prices are still rising strongly for these goods, although it’s hard to see why year-old washing machine tariffs or ten-month old metals tariffs would be major factors behind the big December-January increases shown above.

In recent previous posts on consumer price data and the Trump tariffs, I’ve been providing information on products that will be affected by levies on imports from China. But the more I think about it, the less confident I am that the effects can be accurately gauged at this point. For one, the first full month of tariffs on goods from China came in August. The amount was relatively small ($34 billion). The first full tariff month for another $16 billion worth of Chinese import categories came in September, but none of the products in either tranche belonged in the consumer categories. (Because they were producer goods – the kinds of parts, components, and materials that go into consumer and other products –  confident about measuring their effect on U.S. producer prices – the next set of which come out tomorrow.)

A major set of tariffs containing many consumer goods levies was announced in mid-September, but they only went into effect late that month, so only four months worth of data for those products is available. And plaguing analysis of any of these price statistics, they’re issued using a classification system that’s different from that used in the list of tariff-ed Chinese goods. In a fair number of cases they line up; in most cases, they don’t, and finding satisfactory matches is challenging.

So as I see it, more patience is needed before a useful verdict on the China tariffs can be delivered. But metals tariff-led inflation clearly remains mythical – which of course only strengthens the case for President Trump’s determination to overhaul American trade policy.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Economics and Business Reporting Needs More Context, Too

Tags

aluminum, automotive, Fiat Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, GM, journalism, metals tariffs, profits, steel, tariffs, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s my fervent hope that journalists and their audiences learned a valuable lesson about context from this past weekend’s firestorm about the confrontation on the National Mall between a group of mainly white Catholic high school kids on the one hand, and some Native American and African American protesters. One test of whether the need to avoid rushing to judgment based on limited information really has sunk in will be stories about the impact of President Trump’s metals tariffs on the U.S. auto industry.

So far, the coverage has stressed that the levies, which to some extent, for some period of time, raise the cost of the steel and aluminum for auto-makers, have been major headwinds for the sector. And that’s certainly been the message sent by the industry itself. But there’s also no doubt that other key data, representing that crucial context, have gone missing, and these omissions have significantly distorted the picture being presented.

The key statistic that’s been emphasized is the $1 billion in increased 2018 costs claimed by both General Motors (GM) and Ford due to higher metals prices. Which of course sounds like a lot of money. (Fiat Chrysler, the third of the “Detroit 3” auto-makers, has said that because of its use of fixed contracts, its metals prices were largely unaffected last year, but could cost it an extra $300-$350 million this year.)

But the $1 billion figure doesn’t exist in isolation. It needs to be compared with the total costs these companies pay to run their operations. And when that rudimentary calculation is performed, the $1 billion looks pretty unimpressive.

After all, GM’s total costs and expenses in the third quarter of 2018 (the latest data available) topped $34 billion. Its total costs for the year’s first two quarters exceeded $32 billion. (See here and here.) So if the fourth quarter winds up in that ballpark, GM’s 2018 costs will be nearly $130 billion. Which doesn’t make the $1 billion in extra metals costs look very big at all. Ford’s costs, incidentally, were running even higher than GM’s for the first nine months of 2018.  (See the quarterly earnings reports listed here.) 

The extra metals costs look much more important compared with the profits of these companies. Through the third quarter of last year, GM’s operating profits were $7.50 billion. Its guidance for the fourth quarter and for this year is even better. Nonetheless, a company with nearly $130 billion in total annual costs would seem to have plenty of opportunities to generate savings to offset higher steel prices.

Ford’s operating profits so far in 2018 have been lower than GM’s (just under $5.2 billion).  But its costs have been higher, so it’s hard to finger the metals tariffs as its strongest 2018 headwind.

If President Trump imposes tariffs on vehicles and auto parts from much of the rest of the world, the Detroit 3 could definitely have a tougher slog this year. But that point is irrelevant to the impact of the metals tariffs last year.

Will the business and economics press present a fuller picture going forward? General Motors is expected to announce fourth quarter and full-year 2018 earnings on February 6. Ford’s is coming up tomorrow. Stay tuned!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: As Trump Tariffs Continue, U.S. Manufacturing Growth Steams Along

Tags

aluminum, China, China tariffs, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted growth, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Claims keep getting made that President Trump’s tariffs-heavy trade policies have been hammering American manufacturing. (Here’s just one example from as recent as yesterday.) And government, economy-wide data keeps on coming out showing these claims to be complete bunkum.

Today it’s the Federal Reserve’s turn; its new industrial production report (covering December) make plain as day that metals-using manufacturing for the most part continues to out-perform the rest of manufacturing when it comes to inflation-adjusted output even though Trump metals are supposed to be crippling them with skyrocketing cost increases for key inputs. (As the latest producer price results made clear, almost none of that inflation per se can be detected, either.) And although the effects of the China tariffs are more difficult to unpack, what can be presented responsibly fails to reveal discernible damage since the first tranche was imposed.

Below are the numbers for manufacturing overall, and for industry’s main metals-using sectors. They show after-inflation output since April, since the steel and aluminum tariffs went into effect in late March. In addition to the April-through- December percentage changes, you can also see results through November as reported by the Fed last month, along with the revised through-November numbers, to provide a sense of the trends’ momentum. 

                                              old thru Nov       new thru Nov       thru Dec

overall manufacturing:        +0.80 percent       +0.94 percent  +2.02 percent

durables manufacturing:      +1.73 percent      +2.02 percent   +3.31 percent

fabricated metals products:  +1.61 percent      +1.94 percent   +2.05 percent

machinery:                           +5.11 percent      +5.55 percent    +4.93 percent

automotive:                          -1.46 percent       -1.32 percent    +3.36 percent

major appliances:                 -0.88 percent       -0.31 percent    +0.08 percent

aircraft and parts:                +3.27 percent      +5.29 percent     +6.80 percent

As you can see, the only category that’s experienced production growth problems has been the major appliance sector. February was the first full month during which these levies were in place, and since then, price-adjusted output has been off by 1.99 percent (versus a 3.93 percent improvement for manufacturing as a whole). But as the above table demonstrates, even they’ve been making a comeback lately. In cases like aerospace and automotive, the growth pace has quickened significantly, while in machinery, we see some growth fall-off.

Analyzing the impact of the China tariffs is tougher both because they started more recently (in early July), because they’ve been greatly expanded since then, and because Chinese inputs are used in and compete with such a huge number of domestically produced goods. Moreover, the government’s list of these levies uses a different industry classification system than the Fed uses for industrial production, and exact match-ups don’t abound.

So the below table, showing real output changes for some products tariff-ed since July, is a best guess, with the exception of farm machinery and equipment, and ball bearings. But more power to you if you see China tariff-related damage here.

overall manufacturing:                            +1.72 percent

aircraft engines and engine parts:           +5.42 percent

industrial heating equipment:                 +0.14 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:         +2.21 percent

farm machinery and equipment:             +3.29 percent

ball bearings:                                           -0.17 percent

“Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow. You’re always a day away!” is a well-known Broadway lyric. As the new Fed industrial production figures demonstrate, “tomorrow” is also the best hope for the tariff alarmists to show that the trade curbs are in anyway undermining the American economy on net.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Can We (Finally) Start Deflating the Tariffs-Led Inflation Claims?

Tags

aluminum, China, China tariffs, inflation, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Good luck to you if you’re looking for signs of tariffs-led inflation in yesterday’s U.S consumer price data from the Labor Department.

It’s not that goods that used tariff-ed products (either steel and aluminum, or inputs from China) or that are tariff-ed themselves (final products from China) haven’t become more expensive since the relevant levies were imposed. It’s that the prices of many goods completely unaffected by the tariffs have gone up as well – and in many cases, faster than those that have been affected by the trade curbs. So there’s no evidence that the tariffs themselves have had any notable impact.

In fact, these latest figures (bringing the story up through December) underscore how many forces and developments influence price changes.

A great example is provided by canned fruits and vegetables – presented below in the table showing price changes over various key periods of time (including for the post-March tariff period) for metals-using products. Their costs of course include the cost of either the aluminum or the type of steel used in their cans. When you look at the numbers for most of these time frames, it’s clear that the prices of these foods have risen faster than the overall rate of what’s called “core inflation” – the inflation rate minus the costs of food and energy, which are considered too volatile price-wise to yield an accurate understanding of what economists regard as the nation’s underlying, most fundamental, inflationary performance.

Interestingly, the prices for canned fruits and vegetables have increased much faster during these periods than the prices of food overall. So what’s driving the big price increases in these canned foods must be the cans, right – and presumably what they’re made of? Not if you look closely.

For the real problem is clearly vegetables. Both month-to-month and clearly for the entire year, fresh vegetable prices have soared. Largely as a result, the prices of canned vegetables have jumped unusually strongly, and significantly boosted the numbers for the overall canned fruits and vegetables category.  

The special role being played by vegetable prices is also clear from looking at the trends in food prices – which aren’t included in the core inflation number. Except for December, these prices have risen considerably more slowly than those prices in the core grouping, or in the economy as a whole. 

If you’re still skeptical, look at the price trends for several other food products that often come in cans – like beverages of all kinds, and soup. There’s simply no consistent pattern of their increasing faster than core inflation over any time period. 

Similarly, although the prices of metals-using auto parts have risen more robustly than core inflation, the prices of metals-using vehicles have risen much more weakly. In fact, from December, 2017 to December, 2018, they’ve fallen in absolute terms. So something, or somethings, other than metals prices and tariffs count for much more in the total prices of these goods.

                                     Nov.-Dec.       Since April        y/y April           y/y Dec.

core inflation:            0.21 percent   +1.39 percent   +2.12 percent   +2.22 percent

overall inflation:       -0.06 percent  +1.09 percent   +2.43 percent   +1.95 percent

food:                         +0.37 percent  +0.98 percent  +1.39 percent    +1.58 percent

fresh fruits & vegs:  +1.94 percent  +1.82 percent   -0.45 percent    +1.75 percent

fresh fruits:              +1.33 percent    -1.73 percent  +1.35 percent     -0.73 percent

fresh vegetables:      +2.63 percent   +6.05 percent   -2.53 percent    +4.63 percent

processed fruits        +0.67 percent    -0.64 percent   -0.59 percent    +0.87 percent

& vegs:

canned fruits            +1.48 percent    +0.99 percent   -0.07 percent    +3.12 percent

& vegs

canned fruits:           +1.44 percent    +1.39 percent   -1.50 percent    +2.29 percent

canned vegs:            +1.30 percent    +1.12 percent   +1.04 percent   +4.18 percent

soups:                      +2.49 percent    +2.28 percent     -0.54 percent   -1.43 percent

malt beverages         -0.04 percent    +1.82 percent    +0.84 percent   +1.87 percent

consumed at home

alcoholic bevs          -0.04 percent     +1.34 percent    +2.17 percent   +2.25 percent

consumed away

juices & non-         + 0.13 percent     +1.77 percent     -0.25 percent  +2.51 percent

alcoholic drinks

carbonated drinks:  +0.41 percent     +3.01 percent     +0.03 percent  +4.07 percent

non-frozen, non-     +0.18 percent    +1.37 percent       -0.53 percent  +1.46 percent

carbonated non-

alcoholic drinks

new cars & trucks:        0 percent     +0.78 percent      -1.62 percent    -0.24 percent

auto parts:              +0.42 percent     +1.58 percent      -0.74 percent   +2.20 percent

Tariffs on goods from China have been in effect for fewer months than the metals tariffs. And since July, they’ve been imposed in phases, which were followed by a decision by President Trump to delay increases in a big tranche as part of the latest cease-fire in the trade conflict with China. So the data is less definitive. But thus far, at least, the prices of the goods below – which represent some of the main imports from China subjected to tariffs by the first rounds of these levies, which were imposed in July – have mainly rising more slowly than the rest of core inflation sectors. (The sportswear numbers are dicey, since such apparel is not broken out from the rest of the category as such. So the figures below represent results from a women’s apparel category that includes sportswear.)

                             Nov.-Dec.          Since Aug.        Aug. y/y           Dec. y/y

core inflation:   +0.21 percent   +0.73 percent    +2.19 percent   +2.22 percent

furniture:          +0.55 percent   +0.90 percent     -0.66 percent   +1.68 percent

auto parts:        +0.42 percent   +0.82 percent    +0.39 percent    +2.20 percent

tires:                 +0.98 percent  +1.50 percent      -1.64 percent    +1.29 percent

appliances:       -0.33 percent   +1.25 percent     +2.31 percent    +4.74 percent

sportswear:       -0.89 percent   -2.14 percent       -0.86 percent    -1.33 percent

As for appliances, their out-performance is due largely to a separate set of tariffs imposed on large household laundry equipment starting in February. As shown below, however, even in this case, price increases are starting to moderate. That’s clear from the decline in the year-on-year figure between February and December, and from very slow price increase recorded between November and December.

                                 Nov.-Dec.        Since Feb.          Feb. y/y           Dec. y/y

core inflation:       +0.21 percent   +1.67 percent   +1.86 percent   +2.22 percent

appliances:            -0.33 percent   +3.41 percent   +0.25 percent   +4.74 percent

major appliances: +0.19 percent  +11.59 percent   -4.22 percent   +9.02 percent

I know that I may be starting to sound like a broken record on the (negligible) impact of tariffs on the American economy so far. But until globalization cheerleaders in politics and business, and their mouthpieces in the Mainstream Media, start telling the story accurately, I’ll keep correcting the record.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New U.S. Manufacturing Production Data (Again) Mock Tariff Fear-Mongering

Tags

aluminum, China, durable goods, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, non-durable goods, steel, tariffs, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re among the legions of tariff alarmists in America’s intertwined political, business, and media establishments, this morning’s industrial production report (for November) from the Federal Reserve turned out to be an especially cruel hoax. It’s overall results seem to reveal that President Trump’s levies on imports of steel, aluminum, and on products from China are (finally!) producing major economic data showing damage to domestic manufacturing in the form of inflation-adjusted output. But the critical details (once again) show absolutely noting of the kind.

Let’s start with the metals tariffs – which started to be imposed in late March – and the performance of industries that make heavy use of them. If the Trump tariffs are indeed going to bite, then you’d think that some evidence would be visible eight months later. But the new Fed data make clear that this evidence still hasn’t appeared. As with last month’s post on the industrial production statistics, I’m including small household appliances. I’m still increasingly convinced that they’re now so small and consequently use little in the way of steel and aluminum, they do incorporate lots of electronics – so in principle they reveal something about the China tariffs’ impact.

The data start with April (the first full month in which the metals tariffs were in place) and go through November. I’m presenting the previously reported and revised October results in order to provide a sense of the trends’ momentum. I’m also adding aircraft and parts, which I carelessly left out last month; therefore, the original October results aren’t available.

                                                    old thru Oct      new thru Oct         thru Nov

overall manufacturing:              +1.30 percent    +0.78 percent     +0.80 percent

durables manufacturing:           +1.93 percent    +1.55 percent     +1.73 percent

fabricated metals products:      +2.06 percent     +1.67 percent     +1.61 percent

machinery:                               +5.09 percent      +4.54 percent    +5.11 percent

automotive:                               -2.42 percent      -1.74 percent     -1.46 percent

small appliances:                      -6.62 percent       -8.10 percent   -10.86 percent

major appliances:                     -3.32 percent       -3.24 percent     -0.88 percent

aircraft & parts:                        not available       +3.54 percent    +3.27 percent

The good news for tariff alarmists is the overall real manufacturing growth slowdown apparent from this table, led by a significant downward revision for October. But look more closely and there’s no reason to blame the metals tariffs at all.

For if they were the main culprit, why would the slowdown be so much more modest in the durable goods sector – where so many of the biggest metals-using industries are found? Why would heavy metals-using machinery still be outperforming big-time? Why would another metals-reliant giant, automotive, be demonstrating such impressive catch-up? And how could the major appliances sector – which has also been hit with a product-specific tariff on large home laundry machines – be making up even more ground?

The details will also prove disappointing to China tariff alarmists. Starting in July, levies on $250 billion worth of imports from the People’s Republic. And so many U.S. domestically manufactured products contain parts and components and other inputs from China that it’s been easy to sell the contention that the higher prices for American industry resulting from the tariffs will backfire on the entire manufacturing sector.

Yet once more, the Fed industrial production data reveal these claims to be “truthy” (i.e, something that pushers want to believe is the case) rather than “true.” As noted last month, Chinese inputs are so widely used that I can’t perform a deep statistical dive for now. But the main manufacturing aggregates don’t bear out the “tariff-mageddon” story for the China levies, either.

As the numbers in the first table for smaller appliances indicate, there’s a case that they’ve been damaged by the China tariffs, since they surely use lots of Made in China electronic components. But the industrial production data writ large show nothing of the kind. The figures below show the changes in real output for manufacturing generally, and for its two main super-sectors, for the five months since the first China tariffs were imposed (during the first week of July) and for the five months to and including July.

                                                      March-July                       July-Nov

overall manufacturing:               +0.87 percent                 +0.52 percent

durable goods:                            +0.13 percent                 +2.01 percent

non-durable goods:                     +1.65 percent                  -0.99 percent

The obvious conclusion: Unless Chinese inputs are highly concentrated in the non-durable goods sector (and there’s no justification for this assumption), there’s a problem in non-durable goods stemming from something (or things) other than the China tariffs.  ‘

Luckily for the tariff alarmists, however, there’s no sign that they’ll be held accountable by the institution that’s supposed to be democracy’s watchdog:  the Mainstream Media.  So for the foreseeable future, in terms of what the public will be reading and hearing on trade policy, expect gloom to keep springing eternal. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Still Desperately Seeking Tariff-Induced Inflation

Tags

aluminum, China, consumer prices, inflation, metals tariffs, producer prices, steel, tariffs, Trump, washing machines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s especially bad news for trade war alarmists contained in this morning’s government report on producer prices. Not only does it contain yet more evidence that any inflation from President Trump’s metals tariffs keeps fading, but it’s now possible to show that his China tariffs aren’t fueling price hikes that are noteworthy, either – let alone increases likely to last.

Regarding the levies on steel and aluminum, which began to be imposed in late March, the weakest pricing trends have been apparent in aluminum. In April, its year-on-year price increases at the wholesale level stood at 11.9 percent, peaked at twenty percent in June, and as of November (the latest data reported this morning), the rate was down to 5.9 percent. That’s largely because wholesale aluminum prices have dropped on a monthly basis for five straight months, including by 1.5 percent from October to November.

More pricing power has been demonstrated in steel. Year-on-year wholesale prices for this metal advanced by 7.4 percent in April and have continued upward since, though at a much slower pace since August’s 18.6 percent. In November, the annual increase was 19.8 percent.

On a monthly basis since August, steel prices have dipped on net, even though between October and November, they increased by 0.5 percent.

Importantly, these higher metals prices don’t seem to be transferring uniformly into higher prices for metals-heavy products, including parts and components. For example, some mounting price pressure is apparent in pumps, compressors, and equipment; and mining machinery and equipment. But these sectors were greatly outnumbered by those in which price momentum seemed weak at best and going nowhere – such as construction machinery; machine tools; oil field and gas field machinery; aircraft; and motor vehicles and parts.

And if the price increases aren’t at least roughly comparable, then it’s hard to justify singling out tariffs as a major problem to this point.

The Trump China tariffs began in early July, but evidence that they’re igniting much inflation is even more elusive. On the one hand, it’s true that China’s currency is down versus the U.S. dollar since July – by a little over four percent – which all else equal will depress the prices of Chinese-made goods and services versus their American competitors all over the world. On the other, that’s a sign that, when it comes to China, many special variables influence prices (like a wide range of subsidies), along with the usual supply and demand forces.

Most important, here are the wholesale price changes for some leading products on the Trump administration’s list of the first 818 imports from China slapped with tariffs on July 6. So they represent the changes from July through November.

aircraft engines and engine parts:                                  0.35 percent

industrial heating equipment:                                       0.89 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:                               0.46 percent

farm machinery and equipment:                                   2.08 percent

paper-making machinery:                                            0.54 percent

ball bearings:                                                                1.12 percent

electric generators:                                                      1.71 percent

electricity transformers:                                              0.35 percent

medical equipment incl X-rays, pacemakers:                  0 percent

Three arguably major price spikes are apparent, but the big question remains whether these increases will stick. We’ll be watching.

Finally, there are the washing machine tariffs. As previously noted, at the retail level, prices of these appliances shot up shortly after they were first imposed in late January – to the unmistakable glee of supporters of the pre-Trump trade policy status quo. But at the wholesale level, home appliance prices (washing machines aren’t broken out from this category) have climbed only 0.76 percent from February through November. And during the last two months, they’ve fallen by 0.7 percent and 0.6 percent sequentially. So good luck with claiming that levies at the border deserve blame for whatever higher prices were paid by American consumers who had the misfortune to buy washing machines earlier this year.

As for the November consumer price data (measuring changes at the retail level), the data don’t come out until tomorrow. But on a monthly basis, they fell by 0.2 percent from July to August and by 3.8 percent between August and September before recovering by 0.2 percent between September and October.

In other words, there’s been deflation in washing machine prices lately. As these and the wholesale price figures make clear, that continues to be a fate richly deserved to date by tariff-led inflation claims.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Today’s Jobs Data Once More Refutes Tariff Alarmism

Tags

aluminum, China, Jobs, manufacturing, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, private sector, steel, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As usual with these releases lately, the newest U.S. monthly jobs report (for November) contains lots of valuable information about the impact of President Trump’s tariff-centric policy on the domestic economy. And as usual, this morning’s findings provide ample evidence that manufacturing sectors widely reported to be either currently hurting or likely to be damaged by levies either on imports of steel and aluminum, or products from China, are actually outperforming the rest of industry and even the rest of the entire economy.

Let’s begin with manufacturing industries that make heavy use of metals as inputs, and that have often been portrayed as major victims of the Trump metals tariffs. Here are the changes in their payrolls since April – i.e., the months since those tariffs began to be imposed in late March. For comparison’s sake, the table also includes the employment results for the entire private sector, and for manufacturing as a whole.

                                              thru September     thru October       thru November

entire private sector:             +0.77 percent      +1.11 percent       +1.10 percent

overall manufacturing:        + 0.76 percent      +0.96 percent       +1.18 percent

durable goods:                      +1.01 percent      +1.21 percent       +1.40 percent

fabricated metals products:  +1.16 percent      +1.12 percent       +1.01 percent

non-electrical machinery:    +1.39 percent      +1.68 percent       +1.85 percent

automotive vehicles & parts: +0.08 percent    +0.73 percent       +0.64 percent

household appliances:            -0.31 percent     -1.10 percent         not available

aerospace products & parts: +3.75 percent      +4.43 percent        not available

Once again, the heavy metals-users generally have been performing well. Household appliances and the automotive sector seem to be the noteworthy laggards. But the former have also been hit by a separate set of tariffs on large household laundry machines as well as a slump in the nation’s housing sector. And most analysts believe that U.S. auto sales have recently peaked because of that market’s individual dynamics and cycles.

Supporting this analysis: The strong performance of other big metals-using industries, like aerospace and non-electrical machinery – which underscores what should be the obvious reality that numerous developments and forces influence employment trends in any given part of the economy.

The only possible area of concern is fabricated metals products, where jobs are still increasing, but where the pace of employment creation has slowed to some degree.

It’s tougher to judge definitively the impact of President Trump’s tariffs on imports from China both because they haven’t been in place for as long as the metals duties, and because they entail such a large number of goods. But given those caveats, it’s still tough to see anywhere in the jobs data support for the conviction that these tariffs either are backfiring badly on American industry or will do so because U.S. domestic manufacturers rely so extensively on so many Chinese-made parts, components, and materials.

If you’re skeptical, take a look at the job-creation records of key American industries with extensive global supply chains – including many Chinese links. This table starts in July, because the initial tranche of China tariffs was imposed during the first week of that month. And again, for comparison’s sake, it includes the economy’s entire private sector:

July through November

entire private sector:                        +0.63 percent

overall manufacturing                     +0.65 percent

chemicals:                                       +1.62 percent

non-electrical machinery:               +0.61 percent

computer & electronics products:   +0.47 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:          +0.96 percent

non-electrical machinery:               +0.61 percent

Judging the China’s tariffs’ real impact will of course become even tougher for the time being, given the 90-day trade truce just agreed to by Washington and Beijing, which may reduce domestic companies’ uncertainty as to the wisdom of continuing business-as-usual with China – or may not. So far, however, claims of widespread or even likely economic harm stemming from this bilateral trade war look as deserving of urban legend status as this year’s metals tariffs alarmism.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Productivity-Challenged U.S. Manufacturers Want Their Cheap Foreign Metals Crutch Back

Tags

aluminum, Canada, China, consumer prices, inflation, manufacturing, metals tariffs, Mexico, overcapacity, producer prices, productivity, quotas, steel, tariffs, total factor productivity, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Anyone genuinely concerned with the long-term health of the American economy and its manufacturing sector in particular should be thankful for the letter sent Monday to the Trump administration by 33 business organizations asking for removal of the tariffs imposed earlier this year on steel and aluminum imports from Mexico and Canada.

For the letter – signed by groups from many sectors of the economy but principally by manufacturing organizations – unwittingly reveals the extent to which American industry has become addicted to supplies of metals whose prices have been artificially cheapened mainly by a global glut still primarily fed by subsidized over-supply from China. As a result, the letter also suggests a reason why American manufacturing productivity growth has been so lousy lately – in the process undermining the economy’s ability to generate lasting, as opposed to bubbly, prosperity.

To begin with, however, the signers’ leading claim is demonstrably, and whoppingly, false. They contend that the metals tariffs have caused significant harm to American manufacturers, consumers and workers. They have raised costs significantly for a wide array of industries….” Yet as I have repeatedly shown, (most recently here) since the levies began to be imposed, at the end of March, nothing in the official data on domestic manufacturing’s performance points to any harm whatever. In fact, in most respects, recent months have actually seen out-performance by metals-using industries – which logically should be where the greatest problems stemming from metals tariffs are concentrated.

Especially false is the insistence that because “Many manufacturing industries rely on imported inputs to produce goods competitively in the United States,” the tariffs “raise the costs of manufacturing in the U.S. and place our manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with respect to finished products which are made outside of the U.S. and imported without being affected by the tariffs.  Further, consumers are starting to feel the pinch of higher prices across the board, as evidenced by recent increases in the CPI [Consumer Price Index].”

Indeed, this contention has been borne out neither by the consumer price numbers nor the producer price statistics.

But an examination of steel import figures and productivity performance suggests the real motive of the manufacturing signers in particular: They hope to resume relying on cheap foreign government-subsidized foreign metals for their growth and profits, rather than the kinds of productivity improvements that will do the most to strengthen both their bottom lines and the entire economy’s foundations over any significant time span.

The evidence comes from comparing total U.S. steel imports on the one hand, and total factor productivity (the broadest of the two main measures of efficiency tracked by the Labor Department) for the main metals-using industries on the other, during the previous and current American economic recoveries (the best way to generate apples-to-apples results).

That previous recovery officially lasted from late 2001 to late 2007, and through 2006, measured by quantity, steel imports increased by nearly 28 percent – largely fueled by a purchases from China that jumped more than 260 percent. (As the impact of the housing bubble’s bursting spread throughout the economy, steel imports from China and the rest of the world fell sharply before the recession’s official onset in the fourth quarter of 2007.)

And here are the total factor productivity increases for that 2001-2006 period for the American private sector for a whole, manufacturing overall, the metals industries themselves, and the key metals-using sectors:

private sector:                                      +9.19 percent

manufacturing:                                  +13.55 percent

durable goods manufacturing:          +19.44 percent

primary metals:                                   +5.72 percent

fabricated metals products:                 +6.35 percent

non-electrical machinery:                  +11.01 percent

transportation equipment:                 +13.38 percent

The figures for the current recovery look markedly different. Let’s examine the results from its 2009 start through 2016 (the year for the latest available detailed total factor productivity statistics). During that period, total national steel imports soared by just under 104 percent by quantity. Purchases from China sank like a stone (by more than 63 percent) between 2015 and 2016, because of China-specific anti-dumping tariffs. But clearly many other countries and their subsidized steel sectors picked up the slack, because total U.S. imports dropped off by only 17.31 percent. And continuing Chinese over-production kept exerting downward pressures on prices worldwide.

And how did total factor productivity fare during that big steel import run-up?

private sector:                                      +5.93 percent

manufacturing:                                     -4.48 percent

durable goods manufacturing:            +1.24 percent

primary metals:                                   +5.76 percent

fabricated metals products:                  -7.68 percent

non-electrical machinery:                     -7.08 percent

transportation equipment:                    +9.67 percent

That is, as artificially cheap foreign steel poured into the U.S economy, total factor productivity growth in most of the chief metals-using sectors shifted into reverse – and by startling extents. The only exceptions were transport equipment and durable goods as a whole, with the former clearly holding up the latter. And even in both these cases, total factor productivity growth slowed dramatically.

True, the letter’s signatories claim that they support continued tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China – the main overcapacity and over-production culprit. They also say they back “negotiation of global arrangements to deal with overcapacity.”

But this position looks phony given their opposition to import quotas for steel from countries where tariffs have been lifted (South Korea, Brazil, and Argentina) because these measures allegedly have “placed severe supply constraints on U.S. manufacturers and created even more business uncertainly than tariffs regarding exports from these countries.” In other words, the signatories are opposed to the very policies that have helped ensure that all other metals-producing countries don’t simply keep transshipping China’s over-production into the U.S. market, or respond to China’s glutting their steel market by ramping up their own exports to the United States.

So the real message being sent by the manufacturers’ metals tariffs letter couldn’t be clearer: “We want to regain access to that artificially cheap foreign steel, regardless of its impact on the entire economy’s future.” Arguably, that’s an appropriate, or at least understandable, priority for companies viewing their prime obligation as maximizing shareholder value at any given moment. But just as understandably, it’s the type of priority that America’s political leaders should emphatically reject.