(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Will Inflation and a Hawkish Fed Finally Undermine U.S. Manufacturing?

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, capital spending, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, electrical components, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, non-metallic mineral products, petroleum and coal products, pharmaceuticals, real growth, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The new (May) U.S. manufacturing production report from the Federal Reserve doesn’t mainly indicate that industry may be facing a crossroads because the sector’s inflation-adjusted output dropped on month for the first time since January.

Instead, it signals that a significant slowdown may lie ahead for U.S.-based manufacturers because its downbeat results dovetail with the latest humdrum manufacturing jobs report (also for May), with results of some of the latest sentiment surveys conducted by regional branches of the Fed (e.g., here), and with evidence of a rollover in spending on machinery and equipment by the entire economy (which fuels much manufacturing output and typically reflects optimism about future business prospects).

Domestic industry shrank slightly (by 0.07 percent) in real output terms month-to-month in May. On the bright side, the strong results of recent months stayed basically unrevised, and April’s very good advance was upgraded from 0.75 percent to 0.77 percent.

Still, the May results mean that real U.S. manufacturing production is now up 4.94 percent since just before the CCP Virus began roiling and distorting the American economy (February, 2020), rather than the 5.07 percent calculable from last month’s report.

May’s biggest manufacturing growth winners were:

>Petroleum and coal products, where after-inflation jumped by 2.53 percent sequentially in May. The improvement was the fourth straight, and the increase the best since February’s 2.68 percent. As a result, constant dollar production in these sectors is now 1.21 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020;

>Non-metallic mineral products, whose 1.78 percent sequential growth in May followed an April fall-off that was revised way down from -0.67 percent to -1.72 percent. March’s 0.76 percent decrease was downgraded to a 1.29 percent retreat, but February’s sequential pop was revised down just slightly to a still outstanding 4.37 percent surge. All told, the sector has grown by 2.58 percent after inflation since February, 2020 – exactly the same result calculable from last month’s Fed release; and

>Furniture and related products, whose 1.23 percent May inflation-adjusted output rise was its first such increase since February’s, and its best since that month’s 4.96 percent surge. Moreover, the May advance comes off an April performance that was revised up from a -0.60 percent sequential dip to one of -0.12. In all, these results were enough to move real furniture production above its Februay, 2020 level – by 0.08 percent.

May’s biggest manufacturing production losers were:

>wood products, whose 2.56 percent real monthly output decline was its first decrease since January and its worst since February. 2021’s 3.65 percent. Moreover, April’s previously reported 1.13 percent advance is now estimated to have been just 0.97 percent – all of which means that constant dollar production by these companies is now 5.24 percent higher than just before the pandemic arrived, not the 7.85 percent calculable last month;

>machinery, whose May inflation-adjusted output sank by 2.14 percent – the biggest such setback since February, 2021’s 2.59 percent. As known by RealityChek readers, machinery production is one of those aforementioned indicators of capital spending because it’s sold to customers not just in manufacturing but throughout the economy.

It’s true that machinery’s revisions were mixed. April’s after-inflation production increase was upgraded all the way fom 0.85 percent to 1.69 percent – its best such performance since last July’s 2.85 percent. But March’s performance was revised down from 0.36 percent to one percent shrinkage, and February’s increase was revised up again, but only from 1.17 percent to 1.22 percent. Consequently, whereas as of last month, machinery production was 8.31 percent higher in real terms than in February, 2020, this growth is now down to 6.29 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances and components, where real output sagged for the second consecutive month, and by a 1.83 percent that was its worst such monthly performance since February, 2021’s 2.34 percent decrease. Revisions were modest and mixed, with April’s previously reported 0.60 percent sequential drop upgraded to -0.42 percent, March’s downgraded 0.04 percent dip upgraded to a 0.19 percent gain, and February’s real output revised up again – from 2.03 percent to 2.08 percent. These moves put real growth in the sector post-February, 2020 at 2.19 percent, less than half the 5.55 percent calculable last month.

By contrast, industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic delivered solid May performances.

Aircraft- and aircraft parts-makers pushed their real production up 0.33 percent on month in May, achieving their fifth straight month of growth. Moreover, April’s excellent 1.67 percent sequential production increase was upgraded to 2.90 percent (the sector’s best such result since last July’s 3.44 percent), March’s estimate inched up from a hugely downgraded 0.47 percent to 0.50 percent, and the February results were upgraded again – from 1.34 percent to 1.49 percent. This good production news boosted these companies’ real output gain since immediately pre-pandemic-y 16.37 percent to 19.08 percent.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry performed well in May, too, as after-inflation production increased by 0.42 percent. Revisions were overall negative but small. April’s initially reported 0.20 percent real output slip is now judged to be a0.15 percent gain, but March’s upwardly revised 1.23 percent increase is now pegged at only 0.32 percent, and February’s downwardly revised 0.96 percent constant dollar output drop revised up to -0.86 percent. All told, inflation-adjusted growth in the pharmaceuticals and medicines sector is now up 14.78 percent since February, 2020, as opposed to the 14.64 percent increase calculable last month.

Medical equipment and supplies firms fared even better, as their 1.44 percent monthly real output growth in May (their fifth straight advance) was their best such result since February, 2021’s 1.53 percent. Revisions were positive, too. April’s previously recorded 0.06 percent dip is now estimated as a 0.51 percent increase, March’s downgraded 1.28 percent figure was upgraded to 1.41 percent, and February’s 1.46 percent improvement now stands at 1.53 percent. These sectors are now 11.51 percent bigger in terms of constant dollar output than they were just before the CCP Virus arrived in force – a nice improvement from the 8.92 percent figure calculable last month.

May also saw a production bounceback in the shortage-plagued semiconductor industry. Its inflation-adjusted production climbed 0.52 percent on month, but April’s previously reported 1.85 percent drop – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent – is now judged to be a 2.25 percent decline. At least the March and February results received small upgrades – the former’s improving from a previously downgraded 1.83 percent rise to 1.92 percent, and February’s upgraded growth of 2.91 percent now estimated at 2.96 percent. The post-February, 2020 bottom line: After-inflation semiconductor production is now 23.82 percent higher, not the 23.38 pecent increase calculable last month.

And since the automotive industry’s ups and downs have been so crucial to domestic manufacturing’s ups and downs during the pandemic era, it’s worth noting its 0.70 percent monthly price-adjusted output growth in May.

Revisions overall were negative. April’s previously reported 3.92 percent constant dollar production growth was revised down to 3.34 percent, March’s 8.28 percent burst was upgraded to 8.99 percent (the best such result since last October’s 10.64 percent jump), and February’s previously upgraded 3.86 percent inflation-adjusted production decrease was downgraded to a 4.24 percent plunge.

But given that motor vehicle- and parts-makers are still dealing with the aforementioned semiconductor shortage, these numbers look impressive, and real automotive output is now 1.17 percent greater than in pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, as opposed to the 0.77 percent increase calculable last month.

Domestic manufacturing has overcome so many obstacles since the CCP Virus’ arrival that counting it out in growth terms could still be premature. But an obstacle that it hasn’t faced since the pandemic-induced downturn have s looming again — a major economy-wide slowdown and possible recession that could result from monetary tightening announced by the Federal Reserve to fight torrid inflation.  And with the world economy likely to stay sluggish as well and limit export opportunities (see, e.g., here), the possibility that industry’s winning streak finally ends can’t be dismissed out of hand.  

Advertisement

Those Stubborn Facts: How the U.S. Lost the Global Semiconductor Manufacturing Tech Lead

Tags

capex, capital spending, China, infotech, innovation, Intel, investment, manufacturing, microchips, national security, Samsung, semiconductors, South Korea, Taiwan, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, tech, Those Stubborn Facts

“North America-” (i.e., U.S.-) Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 1990: 31 percent

“North America-” (i.e., U.S.-) Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 2019: 28 percent

“Asia-Pac/Others*- Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 1990: 10 percent

“Asia-Pac/Others*-Owned Firms’ Share of Global Semiconductor Capital Spending, 2019: 63 percent

*Excludes Japan. Includes Taiwan, South Korea, and China

(Source: “A Path to Success for the EU Semiconductor Industry,” by Michael Alexander and Thomas Kirschstein, Roland Berger, February 12, 2021, https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Publications/A-path-to-success-for-the-EU-semiconductor-industry.html)

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Has the U.S. Seen Peak Manufacturing Output for the Virus Era?

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, appliances, automotive, capex, capital spending, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, furniture, household appliances, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, Institute for Supply Management, machinery, manufacturing, real growth, recession, recovery, Wuhan virus

Today’s monthly Federal Reserve report on U.S. manufacturing production was full of surprises, but not enough were of the good kind. And with signs of economic slowing on the rise, the new figures – for September – could mean that, for the time being, industry’s relative out-performance during the pandemic era will begin weakening markedly as well.

The surprises start with the overall figure for the September monthly change in inflation-adjusted output for American factories. Despite an abundance of encouraging data from so-called soft surveys like those issued by the private Institute for Supply Management and the Fed system’s regional banks (see, e.g., here) real manufacturing production dropped by 0.29 percent sequentially. The decrease was the first since April, when national economic activity as a whole bottomed due to the spread of the CCP Virus and resulting shutdowns and stay-at-home orders.

The biggest bright spot in the report came from the upward nature of most revisions. August’s initially reported 0.96 percent monthly gain is now judged to have been 1.13 percent. The July result was upgraded from 3.97 percent to 4.30 percent. And June’s previous 7.64 percent improve was reduced to 3.61 percent. Further, these advances built on similar upward revisions that accompanied last month’s Fed report for August.

In fact, the revisions effect was strong enough to leave domestic industry’s cumulative after-inflation production performance during the virus-induced downturn better than the Fed’s estimate from last month. As of that industrial production report (for August), manufacturing constant dollar production had fallen 6.39 percent from its levels in February – the final month before the pandemic began impacting the economy. Today’s new September release now pegs that decline at only 5.81 percent, and even the monthly September decrease left it at 6.08 percent.

Nevertheless, the breadth of the September monthly decrease in overall price-adjusted manufacturing output unmistakably disappointed. Yes, the automotive sector (vehicles and parts combined) saw its on-month production tumble by 4.01 percent. But in contrast to most of the manufacturing data during the CCP Virus period, automotive didn’t move the overall manufacturing needle much, as real output ex-auto rose only fractionally in September.

Also discouraging –and unexpected, considering the good recent capital spending data reported by the Census Bureau (see, e.g., the “nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft” numbers for new orders in Table 5 in this latest release) – was the 0.41 inflation-adjusted production decline in the big machinery sector following five months of growth.

And even though the U.S. housing sector has been booming during the recession, real output of furniture also slumped for the first time in six months (by 0.96 percent), while price-adjusted household appliances production was down 4.99 percent after its own good five-month run.

As indicated by today’s revisions, these glum September manufacturing output figures could be upgraded in the coming months. Yet given the CCP Virus’ return – which will at best greatly complicate the challenge of maintaining recovery momentum for industry and the entire national economy – no one can reasonably rule out the possibility that, for now, Americans have seen peak post-virus manufacturing production.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Evidence that the Multinationals Really Did Sell the U.S. Out to China

Tags

capital spending, chemicals, China, computers, electronics, health security, healthcare goods, information technology, investment, Lenin, manufacturing, multinational companies, national security, offshoring, offshoring lobby, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, pharmaceuticals, research and development, supply chains, tech, tech transfer, U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission, USCC, World Trade Organization, WTO

RealityChek readers and anyone who’s familiar with my work over many years know that I’ve often lambasted U.S. multinational companies for powerfully aiding and abetting China’s rise to the status of economic great power status – and of surging threat to U.S. national security and prosperity. In fact, the dangers posed by China’s activities and goals have become so obvious that even the American political and policy establishments that on the whole actively supported the policies – and that permitted money from this corporate Offshoring Lobby to drive their decisions – are paying attention.

If you still doubt how these big U.S. corporations have sold China much of the rope with which it’s determined to hang their own companies and all of America (paraphrasing Lenin’s vivid supposed description of and prediction about the perilously shortsighted greed of capitalists), you should check out the latest report of the U.S-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC). As made clear by this study from an organization set up by Congress to monitor the China threat, not only have the multinationals’ investments in China figured “prominently in China’s national development ambitions.” They also “may indirectly erode the United States’ domestic industrial competitiveness and technological leadership relative to China.”

Worst of all, “as U.S. MNE (“multinational enterprise) activity in China increasingly focuses on the production of high-end technologies, the risk that U.S. firms are unwittingly enabling China to achieve its industrial policy and military development objectives rises.”

And a special bonus – these companies’ offshoring has greatly increased America’s dependence on China for supplies of crucial healthcare goods.

Here’s just a sampling of the evidence presented (and taken directly by the Commission from U.S. government reports):

> U.S. multinationals “employ more people in China than in any other country outside of the United States, primarily in the assembly of computers and electronic products.” Moreover, this employment skyrocketed by 574.6 percent from 2000 to 2017.

> “China is the fourth-largest destination for U.S. MNE research and development (R&D) expenditure and increasingly competes with advanced economies in serving as a key research hub for U.S. MNEs. The growth of U.S. MNE R&D expenditure in China is also comparatively accelerated, averaging 13.6 percent yearon-year since 2003 compared with 7.1 percent for all U.S. MNE foreign affiliates in the same period. This expenditure is highest in manufacturing, particularly in the production of computers and electronic products.”

> “U.S. MNE capital expenditure in China has focused on the creation of production sites for technology products. This development is aided by the Chinese government’s extensive policy support to develop China.”

> The multinationals’ capital spending on semiconductor manufacturing assets “has jumped 166.7 percent from $1.2 billion in 2010 (the earliest year for which complete [U.S government] data is available) to $3.2 billion in 2017, accounting for 90 percent of all U.S. MNE expenditure on computers and electronic products manufacturing assets in China.”

> “China has grown from the 20th-highest source of U.S. MNE affiliate value added in 2000 ($5.5 billion) to the fifth highest in 2017 ($71.5 billion), driven primarily by the manufacture of computers and electronic products as well as chemicals. The surge is especially notable in semiconductors and other electronic components.”

> “[P]harmaceutical manufacturing serves as the largest chemical sector in terms of value-added [a measure of manufacturing output that seeks to eliminate double-counting of output by stripping out the contribution of intermediate goods used in final products]…” And chemicals – the manufacturing category that include pharmaceuticals – has become the second largest U.S-owned industry in China measured by the value of its assets (after computers and electronic products).

Incidentally, the report’s tendency to use 2000 as a baseline year for examining trends is no accident. That’s the year before China was admitted into the World Trade Organization (WTO) – and the numbers strongly reenforce the argument that the multinationals so avidly sought this objective in order to make sure that the value of their huge planned investments in China wouldn’t be kneecapped by any unilateral U.S. tariffs on imports from China (including those from their factories). For the WTO’s combination of consensus decision-making plus the protectionist natures of most of its members’ economies created a towering obstacle to Washington acting on its own to safeguard legitimate American domestic economic interests from Chinese and other foreign predatory trade and broader economic activity.

At the same time, despite the WTO’s key role in preserving the value of the multinationals’ export-focused China investments, the USCC study underestimates how notably such investment remains geared toward exporting, including to the United States. This issue matters greatly because chances are high that this kind of investment (in China or anywhere else abroad) has replaced the multinationals’ factories and workers in the United States. By contrast, multinational investment in China (or anywhere else abroad) that’s supplying the China market almost never harms the U.S. domestic economy and in fact can help it, certainly in early stages, by providing foreign customers that add to the domestic customers of U.S.-based manufacturers.

There’s no doubt that the phenomenal growth of China’s own consumer class in recent decades has, as the China Commission report observes, generated more and more American business decisions to supply those customers from China. In other words, the days when critical masses of Chinese couldn’t possibly afford to buy the goods they made in U.S.- and other foreign-owned factories are long gone.

But the data presented by the USCC does nothing to support this claim, and the key to understanding why is the central role played by computer, electronics, and other information technology-related manufacturing in the U.S. corporate presence in China. For when the Commission (and others) report that large shares of the output of these factories are now sold to Chinese customers, they overlook the fact that many of these other customers are their fellow entities comprising links of China-centric corporate supply chains. These sales, however, don’t mean that the final customers for these products are located in China.

In other words, when a facility in China that, for example, performs final assembly activities on semiconductors sells those chips to another factory in China that sticks them into computers or cell phones or HDTV sets, the sale is regarded as one made to a Chinese customer. But that customer in turn surely sells much of its own production overseas. As the USCC documents, China’s consumer market for these goods has grown tremendously, too. But China’s continually surging share of total global production of these electronics products (also documented in the Commission report) indicates that lots of this output continues to be sold overseas.

Also overlooked by the USCC – two other disturbing apects of the multinationals’ activities in China.

First, it fails to mention that all the computer and electronics-related investment in China – which presumably includes a great deal of software-related investment – has contributed to China’s economic and military ambitions not only by transferring knowhow to Chinese partners, but by teaching huge numbers of Chinese science and technology workers how to generate their technology advances. The companies’ own (often glowing) descriptions of these training activities – which have often taken the form of dedicated training programs and academies – were revealed in this 2013 article of mine.

Second, the Commission’s report doesn’t seem to include U.S. multinationals’ growing investments not simply in high tech facilities in China that they partly or wholly own, but in Chinese-owned entities. As I’ve reported here on RealityChek, these capital flows are helping China develop and produce high tech goods with numerous critical defense-related applications, and the scale has grown so large that some elements of the U.S. national security community had been taking notice as early as 2015. And President Trump seems to be just as oblivious to these investments as globalist former President Barack Obama was.

These criticisms aside, though, the USCC has performed a major public service with this survey of the multinationals’ China activities. It should be must reading in particular for anyone who still believes that these companies – whose China operations have so greatly enriched and therefore strengthened the People’s Republic at America’s expense – deserve much influence over the U.S. China policy debate going forward.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence that Trump’s Trade Wars are Winning for America

Tags

capital spending, Dallas Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve, Jobs, manufacturers, manufacturing, output, production, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Here’s how weird today’s (covering June) Dallas Federal Reserve Bank manufacturing report is. It’s prompted me to write my first ever RealityChek post on an individual regional Fed manufacturing report. And I’m writing this subject instead of my original plan to blog on the Iran/Persian Gulf crisis – which is of course generating lots of headlines.

The main reason? The Dallas findings include considerable evidence that domestic U.S. manufacturing is withstanding President Trump’s trade wars quite well thank you – at worst – and that his tariffs are bringing back a good deal more production to the United States than widely supposed. 

For readers not familiar with such reports, every month, several of the regional branches in the national Federal Reserve system issue results of surveys they conduct on the state of manufacturing in the geographic districts they monitor and whose financial sectors they help regulate. The Dallas Fed’s “jurisdiction” is Texas, northern Louisiana, and southern New Mexico. And because Texas is such an important manufacturing state, the Dallas reports are considered especially important in judging the health of American manufacturing as a whole.

Today’s Dallas Fed report began unusually enough, with a series of seemingly contradictory findings stemming from its usual indicators. For example, the so-called headline figure – which purports to measure district manufacturers’ perceptions of overall industry conditions for a particular month – not only worsened for the second straight month. It sank even deeper into numerical territory that supposedly signals manufacturing contraction.

At the same time, these companies’ reports on their output (like all the regional Fed manufacturing surveys, the Dallas Fed’s gauges “sentiment,” or companies’ descriptions of their activities, rather than measuring the activity itself), rose slightly higher into the numerical territory signaling manufacturing expansion. So did the “new orders” indicator – though it was slightly weaker in absolute terms. (That is, it wasn’t signaling expansion as strongly as the output indicator.)

Dallas Fed district manufacturers also stated that they were continuing to hire, and work their employees more hours per weak – though the growth here slowed from that they reported the previous month. The only indicator which registered a major monthly drop was capital spending. It dropped by double-digits percentage points to a two-year low, but still remained in expansion territory.

Interestingly, the Dallas results roughly mirrored the June report from another closely watched Fed district – Philadelphia’s.

But what was really weird about today’s Dallas Fed report were the answers regional manufacturers gave to a series of “Special Questions” about the impact of President Trump’s tariffs. The responses from 115 companies made clear that they believed that the levies effects were more damaging than last September, when they previously answered these questions (and when Texas and national manufacturing was going great guns).

But the difference was anything but dramatic. By many key measures, strong majorities reported that the tariffs had “no impact” on their fortunes. The companies expected the tariff damage to fade considerably within two years. And many of them were responding to tariff pressures they faced by replacing foreign suppliers with domestic suppliers. In other words, they were replacing imports with domestic orders and production.

For example, between last September and this month, the share of Texas manufacturers stating that the U.S. and foreign retaliatory tariffs had had “no impact” on their production levels fell only from 65.9 percent to 60.9 percent. The share reporting “no impact” on employment dipped from 82.1 percent to a still lofty 78.3 percent, and on capital spending from 69.4 percent to 64.9 percent. I.e., these results don’t exactly scream “Tariffmageddon!”

For those companies that did report tariff-related changes, the gap for each of these indicators between those reporting damage and those reporting benefits definitely widened in favor of damage. But again, the differences – over a nine-month period during which lots of tariffs were actually imposed or increased – were on the limited side. The biggest deterioration, for example, took place in capital spending. In September, 20 percent of the manufacturers responding reported that the tariffs were leading them to cut such investments. This month, that share rose to 27.2 percent. Slightly behind capital spending in this respect was output, with the “decrease” share increasing from 20 percent to 26.1 percent.

The share of companies reporting benefits from the tariffs declined, too – but much more modestly. And in June, they still averaged close to ten percent.

By contrast, the companies’ views on their ability to cope successfully over time with the U.S. and foreign retaliatory tariffs brightened through 2021. The share expecting net tariffs damage dropped from 41 percent to 32 percent, and the share expecting net benefits doubled – to 18 percent.

And potentially most interesting of all – many more companies that reported net negative impacts from tariffs were responding by replacing imports with domestic production, not with non-tariff-ed foreign products. The sample size here is small (46 firms), but 17.4 percent said they were “mitigating” the tariff damage by finding new domestic suppliers and another 17.4 percent were bringing “production or processes” back in-house. Only 10.9 percent answered “finding new foreign suppliers.”

When it comes to China, I’ve long maintained that any reduction in Chinese industrial capacity benefits the United States, even if imports from China are replaced by imports from elsewhere. But the Dallas results show that the number of companies responding by bringing production back home in one way or another – as President Trump has promised – could be much higher than many skeptics have claimed and predicted.

Sentiment surveys like the regional Fed reports are no substitute for the actual data (largely for the “survivorship bias” problems I’ve explained in this post). But if more of these institutions could keep track of their manufacturers’ stated experiences with and responses to the Trump trade wars – and on an ongoing, not sporadic, basis – they could help the nation better understand the real consequences.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Could Trump’s Business Tax Cuts Be Working (Kind of) as Advertised?

Tags

capex, capital spending, dividends, Factset.com, mergers and acquisitions, research and development, Standard & Poor's 500, stock buybacks, tax cuts, taxes, Trump, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

One of the biggest stories in economics and politics over the past year has been the tax bill championed successfully by both the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. Economically it’s widely judged to have failed in its primary stated mission: encouraging more productive investment in the U.S. economy. And because it supposedly did little more than shower cash on already profit-rich corporations that overwhelmingly put it to supposedly unproductive uses like share buybacks and dividend payments (see, e.g., here and here), the American public rightly recognized it as a giveaway to tycoons and The Rich generally, and viewed it as one big reason to vote GOP candidates out of office in the recent midterm elections.

What a surprise, then, to come across evidence that the $1.5 trillion in business tax cuts so far have done a respectable job of working as advertised.

According to the Washington Post‘s Michael Heath, new research from Standard and Poor’s shows that since the tax package was passed, the firm’s well-known group of the 500 largest publicly traded U.S. companies have performed as follows:

>Through the first three quarters of this year, they’ve boosted share buybacks – which support the value of company stock and in the process enrich executives paid largely based on the increase (or decrease) in these stocks’ value – by 11.84 percent.

>During the same period, they’ve hiked capital spending (on new plant and equipment) by 19 percent.

>Over this span, they’ve boosted research and development spending by 34 percent.

>During the first eleven months of the year, their dividend payouts have been virtually unchanged.

When the entire American business universe is examined, the picture looks somewhat different – at least through the first half of this year. According to this summary of research from Goldman Sachs:

>buybacks rose 48 percent

>capital spending rose 19 percent

>research and development spending rose 14 percent.

What’s noteworthy about these figures, though, is that they indicate that the larger, indeed multinational U.S.-based companies spent their tax windfalls more productively than smaller, largely domestically focused firms. That’s noteworthy because one of the principal objectives of the tax cuts was to persuade the multinationals to stop stashing so much of their earnings abroad and bring these monies back home to stoke growth and jobs. So it appears that, to a significant extent, that’s what they’ve done.

Of course, the real results of the effects of the tax cuts (or any other policy initiative) can only be assessed accurately not simply by comparing year-on-year rates of change in various metrics, but examining how these rates of change have differed (if at all) from those of years before the initiative went into effect. I haven’t yet located the data for most of these indicators, but the chart below combined with the Washington Post figures for capital spending for the S&P 500 makes clear that it’s been growing much faster since the cuts were passed than before.

One area the Post didn’t look at, though, can’t be neglected: mergers and acquisitions. The numbers indicate that, measured by value, such activity increased much faster between 2017 and 2018 (for the first three quarters of the year) than between 2016 and 2017 – by 33.47 percent to 1.05 percent. (My sources are the 2016-18 data published by Factset.com.  Here’s its latest report.) The absolute numbers are sizable, too – the value of these transactions rose by more than $387.5 billion from January-through-September, 2017 to the same period this year. (Note: These figures are only authorized expenditures – but reportedly there’s evidence that 85 percent wind up getting made.)

But here (as elsewhere, for that matter) is where we run into a big complication that comes up whenever a policy initiative is judged: What changes are attributable to this move, and what changes to other factors? These other factors include other policies (like interest rate movements both announced and suggested by the Federal Reserve, or regulatory or trade policy changes), or existing or evolving business decisions on deploying capital (based on corporate judgments regarding likely customer demand that stem from the overall state of the economy or particular markets, and on how these situations are considered likely to change).

But all the same, a reasonable, defensible bottom line conclusion seems to be that productive business spending since the tax cuts’ passage is rising at a faster rate than before passage, and that the tax package has played a discernible role. Moreover, some of the other plausible reasons for this acceleration also are arguably attributable to Trump administration policies – at least in part.  Faster overall economic growth and regulatory reform are two examples. Trade policy might be a third.

Moreover, I’m making these points as someone who’s argued that President Trump’s prioritization of the tax cuts and Obamacare repeal was a major first-year mistakes, at least politically. Both should have taken a backseat to infrastructure building in particular. I’ve even expressed skepticism about the cuts’ likely economic impact.

But economically, the administration and its supporters seem to have had (and still have) a pretty good story to tell about the tax cuts – which could have bolstered their political appeal. Which means that a bigger mystery than the cuts’ actual effects could be why the administration told it so ineffectively.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Where’s the (Trump Tariffs-Created) Uncertainty?

Tags

capital spending, Census Bureau, core capex, durable goods, tariffs, Trade, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

When something widely predicted keeps not happening, maybe it’s time to start de-emphasizing speculation as to when it might happen, and start focusing instead on why the predictions have been off-base.

I’m not saying that that time has yet arrived when it comes to the impact of President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies on the U.S. economy – which have triggered any number of forecasts of disaster, or at least serious slowdown, but which have, as I’ve reported, so far brought nothing of the kind. But with the release this morning of the Census Bureau’s latest advance gauge of orders for durable goods industries, the time to start reassessing predictions of trade-mageddon clearly continued to get closer.

The biggest contrarian piece of evidence in these durable goods numbers (which go through July) is the finding on American business spending on new orders for capital goods minus defense products. This data series is widely, and rightly, regarded as the best available evidence of corporate purchases of machinery and equipment, and therefore a highly revealing sign of business optimism or pessimism – and of the economy’s prospects.

For if businesses are spending strongly on such goods, they’re surely expecting good times to continue, or less-than-good times to become good. If such spending is weak, then the opposite conclusion is certainly reasonable to draw.

In this vein, a central argument against the Trump trade policies is that, at the least, they’ll increase what businesses supposedly like least – uncertainty about the future – and that as a result, corporations will either freeze or cut capital goods spending and set off a downward economic spiral. But the newest Census data show that nothing of the kind is yet happening.

According to the new release, spending on non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft (defense spending is excluded because it’s the result of government policy, not market forces, and therefore says relatively little about the fundamentals of the economy; aircraft figures are excluded because they can be highly volatile) rose a healthy 1.40 percent between June and July.

If this sequential increase is confirmed in the final July numbers, which will come out in early September, then it will represent the fourth straight monthly advance. And what’s revealing about the time-frame is that the first tariffs to be imposed by the Trump administration per se (as opposed to levies imposed by the independent U.S. International Trade Commission) came in late March in the form of the steel and aluminum tariffs. So these “core capex” findings seem to indicate substantial certainty on the part of American business.

Skeptics can (correctly) point to signs that the pace of core capital spending has slackened since the tariffs’ advent. As indicated above, the final core capex numbers only go through June, but they show that from January through April, such spending rose a total of 2.68 percent, but only 0.92 percent since April.

Yet looking over the comparable data for previous years – when such tariffs were only vague talk (2017) or off the table (before Mr. Trump became president) – shows that this pattern is nothing out of the ordinary. Here are the January-thru April, and the April-thru-June final core capital spending changes for 2014 through 2017:

                                              January-April                   April-June

2017                                     +2.08 percent                  -0.03 percent

2016                                      -1.61 percent                  -1.73 percent

2015                                      -2.43 percent                   -1.35 percent

2014                                      -2.16 percent                   +4.32 percent

Yes, as emphasized in previous such posts, the time-frames are short, many more tariffs could lie ahead, and they could take a major toll on the American economy. But until this damage starts appearing, perhaps the Mainstream Media and the other economic and business powers-that-be might begin investigating why it may not?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Big Messages Being Sent by a Jetsons-Like Invention

Tags

Aeolus Robotics, automation, capital spending, Consumer Electronics Show, Democrats, domestic workers, economics, Fight for 15, Immigration, innovation, Jobs, minimum wage, offshoring, Open Borders, robots, Roomba, Rosey, technology, The Jetsons, Trade, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Along with the rest of the world, I just got another reminder that the future is arriving a lot faster than most of us expect. And that’s got especially big implications for related points I’ve long been making about U.S. immigration policy and efforts to boost the country’s minimum wage.

For many years, when I’ve spoken about immigration policy, I’ve used the following argument to explain the relationship between the mass immigration America has fostered for so long (including winking at illegal immigration) and the productivity gains and technological progress needed to ensure that living standards can improve in a sustainable (not bubbly) way:

“Does anyone remember Rosey, the robot maid on the 1960s TV cartoon show, ‘The Jetsons’? Did you ever wonder why, decades later, there’s still no Rosey – or anything better than a Roomba? A major reason has to be that, with so many legally and illegally present housekeepers and housekeeper candidates available, and willing to work so cheaply, there’s been little incentive to automate domestic work.”

It was my way of using pop culture to illustrate why a big spur to technological progress (and the higher productivity it tends to bring) for the United States in particular has been the scarce labor situation that’s existed for most of American history. With workers in chronically short supply, and therefore increasingly expensive to hire, U.S. businesses were constantly looking for labor saving devices that could cut their costs. And American inventors were terrific at seizing the opportunity and providing them.

In other words, the U.S. economy was behaving exactly the way the textbooks said it should. When labor became too costly, business stepped up its search for ways to substitute capital (which often meant) technology, for those overly dear workers. More recently, as labor has become more abundant (and therefore, all else equal, cheaper), this dynamic has often shifted into reverse.

Incidentally, mass immigration policies aren’t solely to blame. Offshoring-friendly international trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and similar trade policies (like coddling China’s trade predation) have also greatly expanded the amount of workers realistically available to American employers, especially in sectors like manufacturing. And it’s surely no coincidence that business spending on equipment and machines and the like (called capital spending) has been a notable weakness lately in the U.S. economy. (In fact, although many factories in China are automating rapidly – because of wage increases – this report makes clear that labor surpluses are still slowing its pace in some important Chinese manufacturing industries.)

What has this to do with Rosey? Simple. As this Washington Post piece from last week shows, she’s here – or just about here. For at the latest annual Consumer Electronics Show (one of the tech industry’s major events), a company called Aeolus Robotics unveiled a device that looks awfully similar. According to the Post reporter, this “child-sized” machine

“performed domestic duties such as mopping, picking up stuffed animals off the floor and moving furniture, and, perhaps most impressively, retrieving drinks from the fridge using an intricate-looking grabbing arm — all without human assistance.”

The robot – billed as “the first multi-functional robot that can act like a human being” – still doesn’t crack wise in a New York accent, like the cartoon Rosey. But how far off can that be?

Technology and labor costs hardly move in lockstep, and of course innovation results from many causes. But economic theory, anyway, is saying that my view on the cost and supply of domestic workers is becoming outdated. Common sense also suggests that if something like Rosey is just about here, then domestic workers aren’t as cheap and/or as abundant as I believed. So their wages may well have been rising strongly enough lately to create demand for an automated counterpart.

At the same time, the advent of “Rosey” (and how many other devices like “her” just over the horizon?) amounts to a frantically waving red flag about the wisdom of any immigration policy moves likely to increase the supply of poorly-skilled workers in the American economy – which is to say, any proposals supported by the national Democratic Party and the rest of the country’s Open Borders enthusiasts. Just what kind of work can they be expected to find? Indeed, the automation progress represented by “Rosey” signals that much of the existing workforce in the nation is going to be increasingly hard-pressed to secure or hang onto decent-paying jobs.

Similarly, although I believe there’s still a strong economic (and moral) case for a national minimum wage that tracks inflation, the seemingly impending dawn of the Age of Rosey raises big questions about the wisdom of the kinds of minimum wage jumps sought by the “Fight for 15” campaign and other activists.

“Rosey’s” appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show doesn’t mean that I’ve come down one way or the other in the vital debate taking place today over whether all this recent technological progress ultimately will be a net job killer or creator. But it seems clear as a bell that this tech wave is being completely ignored by the Open Borders and the Fight for 15 backers, and that Americans closest to the low end of the wage and income scale are likely to be among the biggest victims.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Times’ Trade Deficit Pollyannaism

Tags

bubbles, business investment, capital flows, capital spending, China, competitiveness, currency manipulation, global division of labor, global financial system, investment, manufacturing, Neil Irwin, subsidies, The New York Times, Trade, Trade Deficits, U.S. dollar, {What's Left of) Our Economy

At least Neil Irwin’s New York Times article yesterday on the real meaning of trade deficits made two points rarely seen in journalistic examinations of the subject. He acknowledged that these shortfalls subtract from an economy’s size. (And should have added that worsening trade balances slow an economy’s growth – a big problem for the slow-growing United States these days.) And he noted that the foreign investment inflow triggered by deficits should be put to productive uses. Otherwise, it can create dangerously bubbly effects, as with U.S. housing and personal consumption during the last decade.

What Irwin didn’t discuss were the real-world obstacles created by trade deficits to using those capital inflows wisely, and unfortunately, they’re much more important and germane to policymakers and the public.

For example, let’s say that a country’s trade deficit is heavily concentrated in manufacturing (which America’s is). And let’s say that it partly reflects not only the dollar strength resulting from the central role played by the United States in the global financial system, but foreign countries’ policies of artificially undervaluing their currencies. If Washington didn’t respond adequately, wouldn’t many prospective investors balk at pouring money into domestic manufacturing for fear of having to compete not only with foreign companies, but with foreign treasuries? And wouldn’t a turn-the-other-cheek American policy toward other foreign subsidies produce similar effects?

Alternatively, a large manufacturing-centered trade deficit could inhibit productive domestic investment by killing off large numbers of manufacturing jobs – which have long been among the economy’s best-paying. Investors considering building new factories in America could understandably be dissuaded by the resulting reductions in family incomes – which could well ripple far beyond manufacturing as displaced industrial workers began competing for the jobs remaining in the service sector, and undermined its own wage growth.

Another live possibility: If U.S. trade deficits significantly reflected the offshoring activities of multinational companies, and American trade policy encouraged the supply of the high price U.S. market from much lower cost (and lightly regulated) foreign markets, wouldn’t many of these multinationals take the hint and send much of their capital abroad?

Nor are these scenarios hypotheticals. If you look at the business investment share of the U.S. economy, as pointed out by Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research (in a recent email), it grew steadily between 1950 (when it was 9.99 percent of pre-inflation gross domestic product) to 1980 (when it hit 14.21 percent). By 2007, the last year before the Great Recession struck, it had fallen back to 13.27 percent. Last year, it stood at 12.83 percent. (Unfortunately, the inflation-adjusted data only go back to 1999.)

Of course, such capital spending is driven by many forces. Baker, for example, emphasizes the destructive effects of financial deregulation, which greatly increased the rewards of short-term-focused speculative activity versus the longer-term gains generated by funding production and innovation. But can it be a total coincidence that domestic American business investment peaked just as imports – especially from predatory trading powers like Japan – were starting to make big inroads into U.S. markets?

Even more suggestive: Research published in 2014 by analyst Aaron Ibbotson of Goldman Sachs showed that U.S.-owned multinationals have not simply stopped or slowed investing in new plant and equipment. Instead, they’ve increasingly channeled such investment overseas, especially to emerging market countries like China, in order to supply their industrial needs.

Not that these are the only problems potentially and actually created by running trade deficits – especially big, chronic ones – that Irwin missed. For instance, when foreign interests buy American assets with trade surplus earnings, they buy control over the U.S. economy. This arguably is not a significant issue when the buyers are other private companies, or when they come from countries that are allied or friendly with the United States, or neutral. When a large and growing share of these acquisitions are made by China – which is neither friendly, nor private sector dominated – threats emerge ranging from market distortions (created by heavily subsidized financing arrangements) to national security dangers.

Irwin should have also mentioned that changing trade balances are crucial indicators of global competitiveness, and in fact signal which countries are likely to be major and minor producers of various goods and services. Indeed, the ostensibly most efficient possible global division of labor that results is a principal justification for encouraging trade. If manufacturing, to take one sector, is judged to create no special advantages for the American economy, then it’s fine to be indifferent to trade deficit signals that U.S. industry’s world-class status is at risk. If manufacturing is prized, then the deficit is indeed a valuable scorecard, and one that’s sending a troubling message.

Of course, Irwin’s column also argued that the strong dollar that puts constant upward pressure on the trade deficit creates major diplomatic and national security benefits for the United States, and there are respectable, if not dispositive, arguments to be made along these lines. But when it comes to the domestic growth, employment, and wage impact of trade deficits – not to mention the effects on all the productivity growth and innovation fueled by manufacturing – portrayals of these shortfalls as close-calls or nothing-burgers belong in a set of political talking points, not in a supposed economic primer.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Factory Orders Keep Falling and Slowing the Recovery

Tags

business investment, capital spending, core capex, factory orders, manufacturing, recession, recovery, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning, I reported on the new U.S. labor productivity statistics just published by the government, which revealed that this crucial measure of the economy’s efficiency continues to grow at historically low rates. Now let’s look at the second major set of full-year, 2015 statistics issued this morning that illuminate the state of the American recovery. They cover factory orders and, they’re considerably worse.

This new orders data shows how much new business is being won by manufacturers in various sectors, and the main category of company economic observers look at is “non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft.” Purchases from these firms, often referred to as “core capital spending” (“core capex” for short), get special attention because they’re a good proxy for the nation’s level of business investment – excluding the volatile (but big!) aircraft, and defense spending (which of course isn’t driven by free market spending). Such investment in turn can be a powerful engine of overall long-term growth.

Unfortunately, capital spending currently is helping to lead the economy’s slowdown. Core capex fell by 1.44 percent from November to December, its biggest monthly drop since winter-affected January, 2015 (2.21 percent). Ignoring such weather-distorted data, you need to go back to June, 2012 (1.89 percent) to see a bigger sequential plunge.

Overall levels of core capex peaked in July, 2014, and on a monthly basis have fallen since then by 8.15 percent. In other words, the economy has suffered a technical factory orders recession (two consecutive quarters or more of cumulative decline) for nearly a year and a half. Moreover, between full-year 2014 and full-year 2015, these orders sank by 3.90 percent – the worst performance since recessionary 2008-09 (-18.50 percent). And since that sharp downturn began, in December, 2007, monthly core capex is up only 1.22 percent.

These figures give some credence to the notion – which I disputed recently – that American manufacturers are mainly being troubled today by a weakening of U.S. demand for industrial goods. I noted that continually rising imports indicate that demand for foreign-produced manufacturers keeps growing. Tomorrow we’ll get the first full-year 2015 trade data, which will shed more light on the relative importance of these factors. For now, though, it’s clear that weak factory orders are one more obstacle domestic manufacturing – and the larger economy – will need to overcome to speed up the recovery and place it on more solid, production-heavy, ground.