(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why 2019 Was a Winner for Trump Trade Policies & America

Tags

Barack Obama, Boeing, China, GDP, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

OK, let’s cut to the chase regarding the new U.S. trade deficit data. (We’ll analyze today’s report from the Census Bureau more comprehensively tomorrow.)

The most important result revealed by the figures – which bring the story up to December and therefore give us our first look at full-year 2019 development – isn’t that the overall U.S. trade deficit fell year-on-year last year (which alone indicates that President Trump is starting to keep one of his signature campaign promises). It isn’t that the huge annual China goods deficit cratered (by 17.62 percent, the biggest such drop on record – including Great Recession year 2009 – and indicating another promise being kept). It isn’t that the still-huge manufacturing deficit has virtually stabilized despite the safety woes of Boeing, long the generator of major trade surpluses. And it isn’t even that these trade gaps have narrowed even as the economy has continued growing acceptably (which most economists insist is practically impossible, especially for a consumer-heavy country like the United States).

Instead, the most important result is that this economic growth continued in 2019 even as that portion of the trade deficit most influenced by trade policy increased at a particularly slow rate. The obvious conclusions? Trade policy can influence the size and rate of change in the trade deficit, and that the Trump trade policies are working.

To remind, this portion of the trade deficit (which I call the Made in Washington trade deficit) sheds light on the above points because it’s the non-oil goods deficit. It’s highly trade policy sensitive because it strips out of the total trade balance numbers the services balance (because so little progress has been made in worldwide services trade liberalization) as well as the oil balance (because oil is rarely the subject of trade deals or other trade policy decisions).

The table below presents the numbers for the last three years of the Obama administration and the first three of the Trump administration – a comparison that’s apt because these time periods are right next to each other in the current (expansionary) business cycle.

Made in Washington trade deficit % change     GDP % change          ratio

2013-14:        +19.35                                                 +4.42                4.38:1

2014-15:        +21.23                                                 +3.98                5.33:1

2015-16:          +2.41                                                 +2.69                0.97:1

2016-17:          +8.05                                                 +4.30                1.87:1

2017-18:        +12.66                                                 +5.43                2.33:1

2018-19:          +1.75                                                +4.12                 0.42:1

As is obvious from the above, the Made in Washington deficit’s growth rates during the Obama years (measured in pre-inflation terms) have been considerably slower than those of the Trump years. And yet the GDP (gross domestic product) growth rates of the first three Trump years have been notably faster than those of the last three Obama years.

In other words, as made clearest by the right-hand column, which shows the ratio between the two, the link between economic growth and trade deficit growth has been weakening significantly during the Trump years. And the President’s tariff-heavy trade policies have plainly played a major role. All else equal, moreover, that means growth that’s more nationally self-sufficient (no small achievement in a still dangerous world), healthier, and therefore more sustainable.

President Trump makes way too many false or exaggerated boasts about the economy (among other subjects). But the 2019 trade data show that when it comes to trade policy, he’s entitled to considerable bragging rights.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The U.S. is Racing to the Bottom in Growth Quality Again

Tags

Barack Obama, bubbles, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, personal consumption, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although Thursday’s latest official report on U.S. economic growth was encouraging from a trade policy and national self-sufficiency perspective, as I contended, it was much less heartening from a quality of growth perspective. That, as known by RealityChek regulars, is the crucial issue of whether America’s output is being powered by the kind of engines that can last, or by the kinds (specifically housing spending and personal consumption) that tend to inflate bubbles and produce calamitous burstings.

Specifically, Thursday’s figures pegging a pretty solid rate of economic growth  both for the fourth quarter of 2019 (2.06 percent at an annual rate), and for the entirety of last year (2.33 percent least preliminarily), also made clear that way too much of this growth stemmed from housing and personal consumption – which I call the toxic combination because their combined and indeed intertwined bloat produced the last (terrifying) financial crisis and ensuing (punishing) Great Recession.

The highlights (lowlights?): On a quarterly basis, the toxic combination’s share of the total U.S. economy (technically, the gross domestic product, or GDP) in real terms (how all the following dollar figures will be presented) during the last three months of last year came to 72.91 percent. That’s nothing less than the highest such figure during the current economic recovery.

The personal consumption share alone totaled 69.78 percent of inflation-adjusted GDP and actually fell slightly from the third quarter’s 69.79 percent. Even so, that figure was the recovery’s second highest. The housing share of the after-inflation economy hit 3.13 percent – up from the third quarter’s 3.10 percent, but the highest total only since the fourth quarter of 2018 (3.16 percent). That’s an indication that housing spending has been notably subdued for about the last three years – and in fact that only personal consumption levels still deserve that “toxic” label.

On a yearly basis, the combined personal consumption and housing share of price-adjusted GDP climbed from 72.68 percent in 2018 to 72.90 percent in 2019 – the highest such level since the 73.04 percent of 2006, when the bubbles were about to burst. Personal consumption climbed from 69.45 percent in 2018 to 69.79 percent – its highest since 2004, when the previous decade’s bubbles were inflating strongly. De-toxified housing’s real GDP share fell from 3.23 percent in 2018 to 3.11 percent in 2019 – its lowest level since 2014’s 2.98 percent.

Another sign of some recent decline in the quality of U.S. growth: the combined personal consumption and housing share not of constant dollar GDP on a standstill basis, but on the economy’s annual real growth. In 2019, they powered 74.25 percent of a 2.33 percent expansion in after-inflation output. The previous year’s share was just 68.62 percent.

This performance still leaves Trump era price-adjusted growth less bubblier and higher quality by this measure than growth during Barack Obama’s presidency (as shown by the table below). But it’s a regression all the same – as growth itself slowed:

                                  Toxic combination share of total growth      Total growth

09-10:                                               46.92%                                       2.56%

10-11:                                               80.63%                                       1.55%

11-12:                                               60.91%                                       2.25%

12-13:                                               73.89%                                       1.84%

13-14:                                             117.22%                                       2.53%

14-15:                                              96.90%                                        2.91%

15-16:                                            130.00%                                         1.64%

16-17:                                               86.82%                                        2.37%

17-18:                                               68.62%                                        2.93%

18-19″                                              74.25%                                        2.33%

In fact, overall, 80.74 percent of U.S. inflation-adjusted growth during the 32 full quarters of the Obama presidency’s stewardship of the economy stemmed from the growth of personal consumption and housing. The figure for the eleven quarters of the Trump economy has totaled 74.12 percent. But that Trump percentage is gaining on the Obama figure, and this kind of race to the bottom in growth quality isn’t one the President and his supporters should want to win.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New GDP Data Show a Trade Deficit Being Brought to Heel Under Trump

Tags

Barack Obama, GDP, gross domestic product, Made in Washington trade deficit, real GDP, real trade deficit, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The fourth quarter (and therefore full-year) 2019 U.S. economic growth statistics are now in, and they’re chock full of results showing that President Trump’s promise to strengthen the American economy in part by reducing the trade deficit is being fulfilled.

To be sure, this conclusion needs several important qualifications. Notably, today’s report on the gross domestic product (GDP) from the Commerce Department is preliminary. It’ll be revised twice in the next two months alone. Further, the trade data the report contains aren’t all shaped by government trade policy decisions alone. For the numbers include the flows of services and oil trade, which are rarely dealt with in trade agreements or similar trade-related measures.

Even so, the new figures entitle the President and his supporters to take at least a slow, or partial, victory lap.

In the first place, the pre-inflation GDP data show that the overall U.S. trade deficit did indeed fall in 2019. The annual decline wasn’t much – 0.97 percent. But it marked the first yearly decrease in this number since 2016’s 0.19 percent. And it looks even better in the proper context – i.e., seen against the backdrop of changes in the GDP themselves.

After all, trade deficits often (but not always) fall for bad reasons – specifically, a shrinkage in America’s output that slashes the economy’s demand for foreign goods and services. That, however, wasn’t the story in 2019. Although the trade gap narrowed slightly, the overall economy expanded by 4.12 percent. That’s considerably faster than in 2016, when growth was only 2.69 percent. And remember – the trade deficit decrease was faster.

When examined after factoring in inflation (the GDP numbers most closely followed by students of the economy), the results don’t endorse the Trump trade approach quite so strongly. But they’re unmistakably encouraging.

In these real terms, the trade deficit rose by 3.72 percent last year (from $920 billion to $954.2 billion). This increase, however, was the slowest annual increase since 2013 (when the gap actually shrank by 6.30 percent). Even better, real economic growth in 2019 still totaled 2.33 percent. In 2013, it was only 1.84 percent.

Those results still don’t look like great news for backers of the President’s trade policy, for they indicate that making significant progress in lowering the trade deficit was at least associated with a very sluggish economy.

Yet if you take a longer view, and recognize that longstanding trends in an economy as gigantic as America’s don’t turn around overnight, the picture looks more encouraging.

The table below shows the relationship in recent years between the annual change in after-inflation (“real”) GDP and the annual change in the real trade deficit. The year 2011 is the chosen baseline because that’s when the current economic recovery settled into a reasonably normal state following the unusually deep dive it took during the Great Recession and the not surprisingly strong rebound it enjoyed during the subsequent expansion’s early stages. Low deficit-growth-to-economic growth ratios identify years during which the constant dollar GDP was able to expand without a major widening of the trade gap, and high ratios reveal the opposite situation. (Negative ratios demonstrate an economy that grew while the trade shortfall actually shrank.)

Another way to think of the matter: When the economy grows faster than or just about as fast as the trade deficit, it’s making progress toward self-sufficiency – a goal that most economists disdain (at best), which that arguably is better for the nation than growth strongly dependent on a still-dangerous and/or slow-growing world. And when the growth of the trade deficit is compared with economic growth, it’s clear that the Trump administration has made major headway on this score.

ama years                      real GDP growth   real trade deficit growth       ratio 

10-11:                              1.55 percent               0.83 percent                 0.54:1

11-12:                              2.25 percent               0.01 percent                 0.04:1

12-13:                              1.84 percent             -6.30 percent                -3.42:1

13-14:                              2.53 percent              8.33 percent                 3.29:1

14-15:                              2.91 percent            25.01 percent                 8.59:1

15-16:                              1.64 percent              8.61 percent                5:25:1

Trump years

16-17:                             2.37 percent              8.43 percent                3.57:1

17-18:                             2.93 percent              8.26 percent               2.82:1

18-19:                             2.33 percent              3.72 percent               1.60:1

Under the Obama administration, for three years, the economy managed to grow in after-inflation terms while the after-inflation trade deficit fell overall. Unfortunately, the growth itself was unimpressive. During its last three years, GDP expanded faster (especially in 2014 and 2015). But the trade deficit rose considerably faster still. So the U.S. economy became more dependent on that dicey world.

During the three full Trump years, the economy’s growth rate has been a bit stronger than under the last three Obama years. But the growth rate of the trade deficit has been a good deal slower. And although the overall economic growth rate has slowed slightly overall between 2017 and 2019, the growth rate of the trade deficit has been more than halved.

Similar trends are apparent from examining a different measure – the real trade deficit as a share of the gross domestic product. As shown by the table below, notable progress was made during the first three Obama years below in reducing both that actual percentage, its growth rate, and the ratio between the economy’s inflation-adjusted growth and the growth of its inflation-adjusted trade shortfall as a share of GDP.

During the next three Obama years, these trends generally shifted into reverse. But although the inflation-adjusted trade deficit as a share of real GDP has continually risen during the first Trump years, its own growth rate has weakened significantly even as growth itself has remained solid and impressive compared with the growth rates of those three final Obama years.

                       real trade deficit/GDP   real GDP   real trade deficit      ratio   

Obama years

2011:                   3.59 percent          1.55 percent     -1.10 percent     -0.71:1

2012:                   3.51 percent          2.25 percent     -2.23 percent     -0.99:1

2013:                   3.23 percent          1.84 percent     -7.98 percent     -4.34:1

2014:                   3.41 percent          2.53 percent      5.57 percent      2.20:1

2015:                   4.15 percent          2.91 percent    21.70 percent      7.46:1

2016:                   4.43 percent          1.64 percent      6.75 percent      4.12:1

Trump years

2017:                  4.69 percent          2.37 percent      5.87 percent      2.48:1

2018:                  4.94 percent          2.93 percent      5.33 percent      1.82:1

2019:                  5.00 percent          2.33 percent      1.21 percent      0.52:1

Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait a few days to judge how the Trump administration has performed in terms of loosening the link between economic growth and that portion of the trade deficit most directly affected by trade policy. I call it the Made in Washington trade deficit, and as stated above, it consists of the total deficit minus trade in services and oil. Here’s how those figures luck (including the inflation-adjusted Made in Washington deficit).

Obama years        real GDP       real Made in Washington deficit      ratio 

10-11:                1.55 percent                 11.92 percent                      7.69:1

11-12:                2.25 percent                 10.23 percent                      4.55:1

12-13:                1.84 percent                   6.15 percent                      3.34:1

13-14:                2.53 percent                 15.85 percent                      6.26:1

14-15:               2.91 percent                  22.70 percent                     7.80:1

15-16:               1.64 percent                    2.54 percent                     1.55:1

Trump years

16-17:              2.37 percent                    6.64 percent                     2.80:1

17-18:              2.93 percent                  13.15 percent                     4.49:1

18-19:              2.33 percent                    4.54 percent*                   1.95:1

*November-to-November

It’s evident from here that the portion of the trade deficit most directly affected by trade policy has grown much slower during the Trump years than during the Obama years, even though Trump growth on average has been somewhat stronger. In fact, during the only two Obama years in which that Made in Washington trade deficit increased nearly as slowly as during any of the Trump years (2013 and 2016) were years in which that growth was weak (less than two percent). Annual economic growth during the Trump years has never sunk to that level, or even close.

So no one should imagine that, even by its own standards, the Trump administration has made nearly enough progress in either reducing the trade deficit, or increasing the economy’s self-sufficiency. But although the numbers themselves say nothing about the value or dangers of greater self-reliance, they make clear that it’s happening, and that much of the progress has taken place where trade policy matters most.

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Growth Takes a Bubbly Turn

Tags

Barack Obama, bubble decade, Financial Crisis, GDP, gross domestic product, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, personal consumption, real GDP, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As encouraging as last week’s official report on U.S. economic growth was – with the rate picking up even more than expected in the second quarter despite numerous forecasts of continued and even worsening slowdown – one big fly was visible in this ointment. The quality of the nation’s expansion has been weakening considerably this year, and as known by RealityChek regulars, growth overly dependent on the wrong engines can inflate the kinds of bubbles that burst so disastrously a decade ago, and triggered a frightful global financial crisis and a deep, punishing recession.

The specific internals of these reports on the gross domestic product (GDP) to track for signs of bubble-ization are personal consumption and housing. For their bloat provided most of the hot air during the 2000s (along with most of the actual growth). And the GDP report for the third quarter of this year (the most recent data available), as was the case since the second quarter, showed that these two GDP elements have driven growth much more powerfully than during that deceptively prosperous era. Further, during the last two quarters overall, growth has looked far bubblier by this measure than at any time during former President Barack Obama’s administration, with one exception. In fact, the second quarter of this year was the bubbliest ever. (More specifically, since 2002, when government figures enabled these calculations to be made.)

The table below shows the actual annual figures from 2002 through 2018 (leaving out only the recession years 2007-2008, and 2008-2009). The left-hand column shows how much total inflation-adjusted growth (the growth rate most closely followed by students of the economy) in each year was fueled by growth in personal consumption plus growth in housing. The center column shows the annual after-inflation growth rate for that year. And the right-hand column shows the difference between that toxic combination’s growth rate, and growth itself.

That ratio is important because it helps makes clear the relationship between growth’s health on the one hand and its rate on the other. Put differently, it makes possible answering the question of whether and when the U.S. economy has been growing acceptably without excessive contributions from the toxic combination.

                      percent of growth       actual growth rate          difference

02-03:                     91.11%                     2.86%             31.86 times greater

03-04:                     74.65%                    3.80%              19.64 times greater

04-05:                     79.25%                    3.51%              22.58 times greater

05-06:                    58.86%                     2.86%              20.58 times greater

06-07:                    27.01%                     1.88%              14.37 times greater

09-10:                    43.77%                     2.56%              17.10 times greater

10-11:                    82.80%                    1.55%               53.42 times greater

11-12:                   59.64%                     2.25%               26.51 times greater

12-13:                   71.58%                    1.84%               38.90 times greater

13-14:                   83.80%                    2.54%               32.99 times greater

14-15:                   96.58%                    2.91%                33.19 times greater

15-16:                127.04%                    1.64%               77.46 times greater

16-17:                  81.13%                    2.37%               34.23 times greater

17-18:                 69.55%                     2.93%                23.74 times greater

One conclusion that leaps out from these results: They bounce around considerably. But they show that growth during the Obama years was somewhat bubblier than during the previous and notorious bubble decade (even leaving out the huge jump in 2015-16), and that its health from that anomalous year steadily improved during the first two years of the Trump administration.

Especially noteworthy: The best Trump growth year (2017-18) was significantly less bubbly than the best Obama year (2014-15) even though that Trump year saw somewhat faster growth.

But what a turnaround since then! As the table below shows, major growth quality improvement continued into the first quarter of this year. Was the economy finally demonstrating the ability to grow strongly by using much safer engines? Unfortunately not, as growth’s quality simply collapsed in the second quarter, and even the third quarter improvement registered so far has kept it in the danger zone. 

                       percent of growth           actual growth rate           difference 

1Q 19:                   24.62%                            3.06%              8.05 times greater

2Q 19:                 150.42%                            2.00%            75.21 times greater

3Q 19*                102.70%                            2.11%            48.67 times greater

*still preliminary

On a standstill basis, the economy lately has looked bubblier than at any time during the Obama years, and in fact is approaching its bubble decade condition. During that period, personal consumption and housing combined regularly stayed above 73 percent of real GDP. Its annual peak came in 2005 – 73.50 percent.

The toxic combination’s share of the economy fell fairly steadily thereafter until 2012 – as did the growth rate itself – and then began rising again (while growth itself continued to slump) from 70.62 percent to 72.58 percent in 2016.

The trend continued into 2017 (72.96 percent) before the percentage dropped the following year to 72.69 – as growth itself picked up.

After falling further in the first quarter of this year (to 72.35) as growth itself rose further, the toxic combination’s role swelled to 72.90 percent in the third quarter – not far off the bubble decade levels. Unfortunately, growth itself has tailed off dramatically to 2.11 percent annualized.

Overall, the Trump economy still remains less bubbly

than the Obama economy. For the 32 months during which the former President was in charge of economic performance, the toxic combination generated 80.74 percent of total growth. During the nine months of Mr. Trump’s economic stewardship, that figure stands at 72.64 percent. But the gap has been closing this year, and as long as it keeps narrowing, President Trump’s economic legacy will remain very much up in the air.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Crucial Trade War Message of the New U.S. Economic Growth Report

Tags

Boeing, business investment, capex, exports, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, non-residential fixed investment, real GDP, real trade deficit, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Everyone hoping for the U.S. economy to perform well had to be cheered by this morning’s look at economic growth in the third quarter – the second of three such reports on the time period for the near future. And special bonus: The results significantly strengthen the case that the United States can absorb hits from even a long China trade conflict with room to spare.       

On top of beating expectations on its headline figure (which showed 2.11 percent annualized inflation-adjusted growth for July through September), a key internal indicator showed unexpectedly showed improvement as well – business investment.

What companies spend on plant, equipment, computers, research and development and the like is always closely watched because increases on these scores are (rightly) deemed the healthiest source of growth and better living standards. More recently, it’s been (rightly) seen as a test of the Trump tax cuts (which were mainly aimed encouraging such expenditures) as well as (less clearly) of the Trump trade policies (because of how they’re supposedly paralyzing corporate executives with uncertainty). And the results so far this year on the “capex” (capital – or business – spending) front certainly have been worse than last year’s excellent performance.

According to the new GDP report, real “non-residential fixed investment” still declined sequentially for the second straight quarter. But the decline was less (0.67 percent) than first estimated (0.75 percent). At the same time, pessimists could point out that the second quarter’s dip was considerably smaller (0.26 percent), so it remains far from clear that this valued growth engine is out of the woods.

Superficially, the trade results as such of the new GDP read looked poor as well, as the after-inflation overall deficit hit a new record. At an annualized $988.3 billion, it bested the previous all-time high of 983.0 billion of last year’s fourth quarter, and the $986.4 billion figure from last month’s first estimate of third quarter growth.

Think a bit, though, and the impact of Boeing’s aircraft safety woes represent a big part of the explanation – and a big part that can’t be blamed on President Trump’s tariffs-heavy trade policies. And even given the near halt in orders of its popular but troubled 737 Max model, the new numbers for total after-inflation total U.S. exports were slightly higher than those of the third quarter’s first read ($2.5231 trillion annualized versus $2.5222 trillion) and those of the second quarter ($2.5175 trillion).

Moreover, the “Boeing effect” apparently will need to be kept in mind a good deal longer, as suggested by this new report of major problems with another popular model.

Nevertheless, even constant-dollar merchandise (goods) exports keep trending up. True, at $1.7842 trillion annualized as of this morning, they remain less than the quarterly record of $1.8141 trillion, set in the second quarter of last year. But the new results exceeded those both for the second quarter ($1.753 trillion) and for the third quarter’s initial estimate ($1.7823 trillion).

Further, some more of the recent weakness in U.S. trade accounts looks attributable to another sector of the economy that has little or nothing to do with the trade wars, either – at least not directly, in the sense of provoking retaliatory tariffs. That’s America’s services trade.

The new GDP report’s statistics on these trade flows were worse than those of the second quarter and of the first third quarter estimates both on the exports side and on the imports side. Indeed, price-adjusted services exports fell deeper into worst-since-the-second-quarter-of-2017 territory (coming in at $745.7 billion annualized versus the earlier number of $740.7 billion. And at $563.5 billion, real services imports rose higher into all-time record territory (with the second worst such total being the $558.1 billion during the first quarter of this year).

Since President Trump has blown so hot and cold on his China tariffs – and shows signs of doing the same on threatened separate automotive tariffs – Washington-related trade developments seem likely to keep distorting the GDP figures (including by inhibiting some business investment) and the trade figures for the foreseeable future no matter what happens with Boeing or U.S. services industries.

At the same time, the new GDP report underscores a point often lost in the understandable and volatile flood of headlines and forecasts: Even though changing the fundamental course of American trade policy is a thoroughly disruptive undertaking, with transition-related efficiency-reducing adjustments inevitable, the U.S. economy looks to be passing this test, including with China, pretty handily.  Better still:  Modest signs of further improvement are visible. In other words, and especially considering the failure of pre-Trump approaches, there’s here’s every reason for the President to stay his new course on trade.

And one more point:  If we don’t communicate before, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: US Growth Remains Solid Despite a Notable Boeing Drag

Tags

Boeing, exports, GDP, General Motors strike, goods, gross domestic product, imports, real GDP, real trade deficit, services, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s first official read on U.S. economic growth in the third quarter not only beat expectations. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) expanded nicely despite potholes dug by the General Motors strike and Boeing’s ongoing safety woes.

Bad news wasn’t entirely absent, especially from a trade policy standpoint, as the overall U.S. trade gap edged up to a new record in absolute terms. But even here, mitigating circumstances can be cited – namely, foreign reluctance to purchase Boeing planes, which surely weighed on exports, and tariff front-running sparked by importers’ desire to buy products from China in particular to beat the imposition of threatened tariffs.

The third quarter’s 1.91 percent annualized increase in real GDP – the first of three near-term growth figures that will be issued – handily surpassed the latest 1.6 percent consensus of the forecasts tracked by CNBC and Moody’s Analytics. Moreover, the Boeing effect looks anything but negligible. As noted by Harvard University economist Megan Greene, the Trump administration believes that the aerospace giant’s troubles cut 0.40 percentage points from third quarter GDP, and private sector economists peg the cost at 0.25 percentage points.

The real trade deficit, however, was clearly no help. It wasn’t nearly as big a drag on inflation-adjusted growth as in the second quarter (when it subtracted 0.68 percentage points from that two percent annualized constant dollar expansion). But it still depressed the third quarter’s real growth by 0.08 percentage points – and edged up by 0.58 percent to a new record $986.4 billion on an annual basis. (The previous all-time high was the $983.0 billion level reached in the fourth quarter of 2018).

This after-inflation trade deficit as a share of the entire economy stayed virtually unchanged from quarter to quarter – at 5.16 percent. But these are the kinds of levels that haven’t been seen since late during the last, bubble-decade expansion (in the third quarter of 2007). Their only saving grace is that they’re still well off the current record of 6.10 percent of GDP, also set during that bubble decade (in the third quarter of 2005).  Nonetheless, the Boeing effect shouldn’t be discounted here, either, as demonstrated in my recent RealityChek post. 

As for other trade-related highlights of the new GDP report:

>Total annualized real exports increased by 0.19 percent, from $2.5175 trillion in the second quarter to $2.5222 trillion.

>Inflation-adjusted goods exports rose at a somewhat faster rate – 0.39 percent sequentially, from $1.7753 trillion to $1.7823 trillion.

>Constant dollar services exports fell on-quarter for the second straight quarter – from $748 billion annualized to $746.3 billion. That total was their lowest since the second quarter of 2017’s $740.7 billion.

>Combined after-inflation goods and services imports were up by 0.29 percent, from $3.4982 trillion annualized to $3.5085 trillion – the second highest total on record after the $3.5116 trillion record in the fourth quarter of 2018.

>Constant dollar goods imports inched up by 0.11 percent sequentially, from $2.9417 trillion annualized to $2.9450 trillion.

>Inflation-adjusted services imports rose quarter to quarter from $557.2 billion annualized to $563.2 billion. That total represents a new record, surpassing the previous all-time high of $558.1 billion set in the first quarter of this year.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is Growth’s Quality Again Turning for the Worse?

Tags

bubbles, Financial Crisis, GDP, Great Recession, gross domestic product, housing, inflation-adjusted growth, Obama, personal consumption, real GDP, real growth, toxic combination, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

“The consumer will save us,” or some variation thereof, has become a rallying cry for those believing that the U.S. economy will avoid recession, at least for the foreseeable future. For RealityChek regulars, however, it’s a red flag, possibly revealing that too many economy watchers have forgotten, or never learned, the most important lesson of the global financial crisis of the previous decade and the Great Recession it triggered: The quality of American growth matters at least as much as the quantity – and more specifically, economic expansion that’s too heavily reliant on consuming rather than producing is too likely to end in tears.

That’s why last week’s latest official report on America’s economic growth has me somewhat worried. It’s true, as I reported, that it contained some good news on the trade front, showing a continuing Trump administration trend of decent growth rates no longer tightly linked with huge, soaring trade deficits. But the figures (the second look of three looks at the second quarter’s performance – at least for the time being) also confirm major backsliding when it comes to the domestic determinants of healthy and unhealthy growth – a big surge in the role of consumption and housing combined as growth engines. That’s exactly the toxic combination that inflated the last decade’s historic bubble. And it could become a reversal of a positive Trump-period trend.

According to those official data, consumption and housing in the second quarter fueled 150 percent of that period’s 2.02 percent annualized inflation-adjusted growth – the most closely followed measure of change in gross domestic product (GDP – economists’ term for the economy as a whole). A figure greater than 100 percent, by the way, is possible because other components of GDP can subtract from growth – and in the second quarter, obviously did..

That 150 percent figure is the biggest by far since the third and fourth quarters of 2015. The only saving grace for that figure is that back in 2015, much stronger performance in personal consumption and housing was producing only roughly comparable overall growth.

The second quarter numbers are somewhat better on a standstill basis, but point in the wrong direction as well. From March through June this year, the toxic combination represented 72.67 percent of the economy in constant dollar terms. That’s the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2017 (72.87 percent). Moreover, back then, the economy was growing a good deal faster (at a 3.50 versus a 2.02 percent annual rate).

None of this means that the U.S. economy is now firmly on an unhealthy growth track. In fact, the worrisome second quarter “growth contribution” figures followed an especially good first quarter. From January through March, personal consumption and housing together produced only 23.87 percent of that stretch’s solid 3.01 percent annualized real growth – the lowest such figure since the fourth quarter of 2011 (16.38 percent of 4.64 percent annualized growth).

On a standstill basis, the last time that the toxic combination represented a lower share of the total economy in real terms was the fourth quarter of 2015 (72.15 percent). And during that period, there was almost (0.13 percent) real annualized economic growth.

Further, the Trump healthy growth record so far is better than the record during President Obama’s two terms in office. During the latter’s administrations, the toxic combination generated 80.74 percent of its $2.2537 trillion in after-inflation growth. Under President Trump, personal consumption plus housing has been responsible for 72.64 percent of $1.002 trillion of such growth. (Both calculations begin the these two administrations in the second quarter of their first year in office, since Inauguration Day doesn’t take place until January 20.)

Real growth, moreover, has been somewhat faster so far. Over 32 quarters, the U.S. economy grew by 18.44 percent after inflation under Obama. Over nine Trump quarters, the economy has become 5.56 percent larger – which translates into 19.80 percent growth over a 32-quarter stretch. All in all, that’s a pretty good reflection on this President’s performance.

Economically, though, the big question is whether it will continue. And politically, it’s whether it will suffice, in tandem with any other perceived strengths, to bring a second Trump term.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Healthier U.S. Growth is Continuing, at Least Trade-Wise

Tags

exports, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, Obama, real GDP, real growth, real trade deficit, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since we’re clearly well into the 2020 presidential campaign, comparisons understandably have begun to be made by political and even economic types between President Trump’s economic record and that of his White House predecessor, Barack Obama.

In that vein, today’s new official U.S. figures on economic growth contain some good news for Mr. Trump, his supporters – and in fact for Americans collectively:  Even though they confirm that the nation’s growth this year is indeed slowing, and the trade deficit targeted for reduction by the President is going up, the latest numbers on the gross domestic product (GDP) also show that inflation-adjusted growth (the growth figure most closely followed) during the Trump years is still less closely associated with trade deficit increases than under Obama. In other words, by one important measure, the economy’s expansion is healthier – more of it is being generated by producing goods and services at home, instead of consuming imported goods and services.

The new numbers – which are the first of two sets of revisions for the second quarter of the year that will be released this year – don’t indicate progress at first glance. The real trade deficit, originally reported at $978.7 billion on an annualized basis, is now judged to have been $982.5 billion. That’s just a bit less than the record $983 billion figure that was hit in the fourth quarter of last year.

Moreover, total exports were revised down ($2.5205 trillion annualized to $2.5165 trillion annualized). Total imports were less than first reported as well, but only by a hair – $3.4990 trillion rather than $3.4992 trillion. And worse, quarter-to-quarter after-inflation total exports are now off by 1.48 percent, and after-inflation total imports are up 0.02 percent. Indeed, that real export fall-off was the biggest quarterly decrease since the depths of the last recession – when they cratered by 8.08 percent in the first quarter of 2009.

But despite this seeming backsliding, the Trump record has been much more impressive when examined in the context of economic growth. This conclusion emerges by examining how fast the economy has increased in constant dollar terms versus how fast the trade deficit has widened under the two administrations. Here are the calendar year annual rates of change for each, followed by the ratio between the two:

Obama years

                        real GDP       real trade deficit      deficit growth to GDP growth

09-10:          2.56 percent       16.73 percent                        6.54:1

10-11:          1.55 percent         0.39 percent                        0.25:1

11-12:          2.25 percent        -0.09 percent                      -0.04:1

12-13:          1.84 percent        -6.30 percent                      -3.42:1

13-14:         2.53 percent          8.33 percent                        3.29:1

14-15:         2.91 percent        25.02 percent                        8.60:1

15-16:         1.69 percent          8.61 percent                        5:09:1

Trump years

16-17:        2.37 percent          8.43 percent                        3.56:1

17-18:        2.93 percent          8.37 percent                        2.86:1

These tables show that only once during the Obama years (2013-14) did the economy grow at Trump-like rates while keeping real trade deficit growth within modest Trump-like ranges.  And although the that real trade deficit did shrink in absolute terms in two of the Obama years (2011-12 and 2012-13), economic growth during those two years were subpar. 

Moreover, the 2017-18 Trump results were distorted by major tariff front-running – the rush by importers to get their goods into the United States before announced tariffs raised their prices.

In addition, although 2019 isn’t yet finished, the Trump ratios so far look relatively good as well – especially for the first quarter.

                           real GDP     real trade deficit      deficit growth to GDP growth

4Q18-1Q19:    3.06 percent    -3.97 percent                        -1.30:1

1Q19-2Q19:    2.02 percent     4.07 percent                          2.01:1

The Trump record looks better still when presented on a rolling four quarters basis. This time the frame of reference will be a little different. We’ll focus on the high growth Obama period through the end of that administration, and compare it with the high growth Trump period through the present.

Obama years

                          real GDP        real trade deficit      deficit growth to GDP growth

1Q14-1Q15:   3.98 percent       26.68 percent                       6.70:1

2Q14-2Q15:   3.35 percent       21.34 percent                       6.37:1

3Q14-3Q15    2.44 percent       30.60 percent                     12.54:1

4Q14-4Q15:   1.90 percent       21.83 percent                     11.49:1

1Q15-1Q16:   1.62 percent       11.72 percent                       7.23:1

2Q15-2Q16:   1.34 percent         9.59 percent                      7.16:1

3Q15-3Q16:   1.56 percent         2.42 percent                      1.55:1

4Q15-4Q16:   2.03 percent       10.87 percent                      5.35:1

1Q16-1Q17:   2.10 percent         6.92 percent                      3.30:1

Trump years

4Q16-4Q17:   2.80 percent         5.90 percent                      2.11:1

1Q17-1Q18:   2.86 percent         6.34 percent                      2.22:1

2Q17-2Q18:   3.20 percent         0.06 percent                      0.19:1

3Q17-3Q18:   3.13 percent       15.44 percent                      4.93:1

4Q17-4Q18    2.52 percent       11.22 percent                      4.45:1

1Q18-1Q19:   2.65 percent         6.76 percent                     2.55:1

2Q18-2Q19:   2.28 percent       15.52 percent                     6.81:1

Again, under the Trump administration, the economy has managed to expand healthily in real terms while keeping the trade deficit’s increase under control much more often than under the Obama administration. Although the third and fourth quarter figures look like they undermine this case, in fact, they clearly demonstrate the impact of tariff front-running.  The only genuine fly in the Trump ointment so far: that final set of figures, when the price-adjusted trade deficit rose 6.81 times faster than the economy grew in those terms, while the rate of overall growth declined. And unfortunately, when it comes to analyzing these trends going forward, because of Mr. Trump’s new tariff announcements, front-running is likely to continue for the time being.

Even with this tariff front-running – and especially if the front-running doesn’t throw off the figures excessively – an economy growing faster relative to its trade deficit isn’t the sexiest economic achievement to brag about. But is it completely unreasonable to think that a supposed master-brander and pitchman like President Trump can’t rise to the challenge?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Decoupling is Still the Biggest – & Still Growing – U.S.-China Trade War Story

Tags

China, exports, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Amazing as it sounds given the rush of developments and headlines over the last week, one big U.S.-China trade-related story remains largely overlooked, even though it keeps getting more and more important: Mainly because of President Trump’s tariffs and retaliatory duties from Beijing, the American and Chinese economies not only continue decoupling from each other. The decoupling so far has been unmistakably good for the United States. More specifically, U.S. economic growth has less and less to do all the time with trade with China, whether we’re talking exports or imports.

The story begins with the importance of two-way U.S.-China trade to the American economy as a whole. Since the Trump tariffs began, in the spring of 2018, it’s shrunk dramatically in the goods category. (Timely info on bilateral services trade isn’t available – and it’s a relatively small share of total trade anyway.) The table below shows goods exports and imports between the two countries as a share of the U.S. economy (gross domestic product, or GDP) in pre-inflation dollars – the measure most commonly used and followed. As you can see from those left-hand column numbers, since the current U.S. economic recovery from the last recession began (in the middle of 2009), this figure rose steadily through 2014, and has nosedived rapidly this year. (The 2019 figures measure growth since the first and second quarters of 2018, respectively – i.e., over most of the course of the trade war so far.)

And of special significance, as this shrinkage has gathered steam, the United States has turned in most of its strongest recent growth numbers. This development can be seen by comparing the left-hand column with the middle column (showing annual current-dollar growth rates). Or look at it this way: Two-way bilateral trade was last in this neighborhood as a share of the economy in 2009 – as an historically deep recession was ending. Nowadays, however, growth is solid by the last decade’s standards.

This relationship is even clearer from the right-hand column, which shows the relationship between China trade as a share of the U.S. economy and U.S. growth rate. Specifically, under the Obama administration, as this trade was rising as a share of GDP, the latter strongly exceeded the former only once (that is, approached the results of the Trump years) in 2014. (That is, the number on the left of the colon was significantly higher than the “one” on the right.) But during all of the Trump years, these results have hit that lofty level – and then some.

2-way China trade/GDP   GDP change   ratio of China trade/GDP to GDP change

2009:      2.53                        -1.79                                    n/a

2010:      3.05                         3.76                                  1.24:1

2011:      3.24                         3.67                                  1.13:1

2012:      3.31                         4.21                                  1.27:1

2013:      3.35                         3.63                                  1.08:1

2014:      3.38                         4.42                                  1.31:1

2015:      3.29                         3.98                                  1.21:1

2016:      3.09                         2.69                                 0.87:1

2017:      3.25                         4.30                                 1.32:1

2018:      3.21                         5.43                                 1.69:1

1Q 2019:  2.51                       4.64                                 1.85:1

2Q 2019:  2.61                       4.04                                 1.55:1

Then there’s the notion that the U.S. economy usually happens to grow fastest when its trade deficits overall (including with China) balloon – supposedly meaning that these trade shortfalls at least reflect strong economic performance, and that any policies meant to reduce them are dangerously misguided. But the latest U.S. data continue to debunk that notion completely.

The table below shows annual pre-inflation percentage GDP growth in the left-hand column, starting in 2009 and ending with the figures for the years ending in the first and second quarters of this year. The middle column shows the annual percentage growth rate of the American goods deficit with China, and the right-hand column shows the ratio between the two.

          GDP change                      China goods trade deficit growth          ratio

2009:     -1.79                                                -15.36                               -8.58:1

2010:      3.76                                                  20.35                                5.41:1

2011:      3.67                                                    8.13                                2.22:1

2012:      4.21                                                    6.72                                1.60:1

2013:     3.63                                                     1.14                                3.18:1

2014:     4.42                                                     8.20                                1.86:1

2015:     3.98                                                     6.53                                1.64:1

2016:     2.69                                                   -5.58                                   n/a

2017:     4.30                                                    8.25                                1.92:1

2018:     5.43                                                  11.75                                2.16:1

1Q 19    4.64                                                 -11.92                                  n/a

2Q 19    4.04                                                   -8.44                                  n/a

The above results for one of the Obama years shows robust U.S. economic growth as the goods trade deficit with China surged. But that year was 2009-10 – the first recovery year, when all U.S. trade snapped back sharply following an especially deep recessionary dive (as made clear in the 2008-09 results). Once the economy settled into a more sustainable mode, the supposed relationship breaks down completely.

And the results for the latest Trump years demonstrate strong growth occurring side-by-side with major reductions in the U.S.-China goods trade deficit.

Faring no better is the claim that many U.S.-based industries need inexpensive Chinese inputs (parts, components, materials) for their products in order to remain globally competitive. The following table shows the annual rates of change for the nation’s goods imports from China and its economic growth (or contraction, as in the case of 2009). Otherwise, how could the economy have registered its strong performance over the last year even as goods imports from China have been falling at double-digits percentage rates?

               US goods imports from China                  GDP change

2009:                  12.26                                                  -1.79

2010:                  23.14                                                    3.76

2011:                    9.43                                                    3.67

2012:                    6.57                                                    4.21

2013:                    3.48                                                   3.63

2014:                    6.37                                                   4.42

2015:                    3.14                                                   3.98

2016:                  -4.30                                                   2.69

2017:                   9.26                                                   4.30

2018:                   6.82                                                   5.43

1Q 19:              -13.11                                                   4.64

2Q 19:              -10.89                                                   4.04

And the idea that access to the China market is vital for the American economy?

               US goods exports to China                     GDP change

2009:                    -0.34                                              -1.79

2010:                   32.25                                               3.76

2011:                   13.29                                               3.67

2012:                     6.41                                               4.21

2013:                   10.16                                               3.63

2014:                     1.57                                               4.42

2015:                   -6.29                                               3.98

2016:                   -0.24                                               2.69

2017:                  12.29                                               4.30

2018:                   -7.43                                               5.43

1Q 19                -19.56                                               4.64

2Q 19                -18.20                                               4.04

According to the above figures, that claim didn’t even hold during the Obama years. (See, e.g., 2014 and 2015). And as with imports, the economy has grown impressively during the Trump years despite record declines in sales to China.

U.S. growth at acceptable rates as trade with an ever more belligerent China shrivels is of course good news from a national security standpoint. But given China’s long record of economic predation and other interventionist policies that inevitably distort markets for goods and services, it’s good news from a purely economic standpoint, too – whether it makes headlines or not.