(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Tariffs are Off the Hook for Manufacturing’s Slowdown

Tags

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

Here’s all you need to know to recognize that domestic U.S. manufacturing is experiencing some kind of slowdown: Today’s real output numbers from the Federal Reserve showed that production flat-lined on month in March. And that was a significant improvement from the comparable February figure – a 0.37 percent drop!

So do these dreary results mean that tariff fear-mongers are finally right to claim that President Trump’s levies on imports of steel and aluminum, and on a wide range of goods from China are backfiring on American industry? Not according to the internals.

As has been the case for months, the most convincing evidence comes from the metals-using industries. After all, the tariffs affecting their products have been in place longer. (April was the first full month in which they were in effect.) The most relevant industries are easy to identify. And because (with despite numerous exemptions) the tariffs have been virtually worldwide in scope, there’s no need to wonder whether how extensively the steel and aluminum in question are being supplied by an individual country or even group of countries.

The table below presents the inflation-adjusted output changes in major metals-using industries from April through each of the Fed’s last three data months. This format differs from that used in my previous industrial production-related posts because late last month the Fed released a set of revisions going back to 2015. So rather the old and new figures for the previous data month aren’t comparable anymore, and I simply decided to use the new figures going back three months.

                                            April thru Jan.      April thru Feb.     April thru March

overall manufacturing:      +1.20 percent        +0.83 percent         +0.82 percent

durables manufacturing:   +2.05 percent        +2.05 percent          +1.96 percent

fabricated metals prods:   +3.53 percent        +3.08 percent          +2.85 percent

machinery:                       +4.33 percent         +2.24 percent         +2.71 percent

automotive:                      – 2.84 percent         -0.58 percent          -3.06 percent

major appliances:             -1.83 percent          -1.30 percent         -5.62 percent

aircraft and parts:            +5.45 percent         +6.15 percent         +7.43 percent

An overall manufacturing slowdown is apparent from the February and March columns in the top line. And the second line shows that it’s impacted durable goods to a slightly greater extent – a possible signal of a tariff effect since that’s the super-category in which the main metals-using sectors are located.

But tariff-mageddon claims, as has been the case so far, falter upon looking at the details. First, they’re not very consistent with the volatility much of this data display. (E.g., automotive and appliances.) Second, over the past month, the big machinery sector (which provides equipment serving many different markets) has gained momentum. And aircraft and parts-making just keeps growing faster and faster. (Of course, its performance will likely become a drag on manufacturing output going forward because of Boeing’s 737 Max problems and the damage that will harm not only aircraft production, and possibly the industry’s entire supply chain.)

If tariffs are becoming a challenge for these industries, it’s clear that their impact is being swamped by other influences on their performance – especially the distinctive characteristics and status of their individual markets.

Unfortunately, all of the reasons for considering these metals tariffs-related conclusions compelling cut the opposite way when it comes to evaluating the China levies’ impact. The first full month when the earliest were in place was only August. And identifying industries most plausibly affected is difficult both because the tariff list and the industrial production data use different manufacturing classification schemes, and because of the challenge of figuring out where tariff-ed Chinese products play crucial roles in American industry (in the form of parts, components, materials, and other intermediate goods).

As a result, the bottom line remains that only a handful of manufacturing industries look like strong candidates for producing any kind of a China tariff effect, and most of these suffer from one of the above complications. Sharp-eyed RealityChek regulars will notice that I’ve added oil and gas drilling platform parts to the list:

                                            Aug. thru Jan.       Aug. thru Feb.      Aug. thru March

overall manufacturing:      +0.29 percent         -0.08 percent          -0.09 percent

ball bearings:                     +0.27 percent        +0.19 percent         +0.11 percent

industrial heating equip:     -3.61 percent         -3.39 percent         -5.27 percent

farm machinery & equip:  +2.22 percent       -17.14 percent        -11.65 percent

oil/gas drilling platfm pts: +4.74 percent        +4.59 percent         +4.36 percent

The overall manufacturing slowdown is apparent from these statistics, too. But so is a bewildering range of results, along with a small sample size. Whatever problems American industry might now be facing, the case that tariffs bear much, if any, blame has yet to be supported by these or any other data.

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Fed Just Showed that Tariff Alarmism Needs to Wait (At Least) Another Month

Tags

aluminum, China, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, metals, metals-using industries, real growth, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The Federal Reserve’s new industrial production figures (for February) follow a pattern that’s begun to emerge lately. They provide evidence that the domestic U.S. manufacturing sector is shifting into a slower gear. But they offer scarcely any reason to believe that President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies are behind this possible soft patch.

As usual, let’s start with the data pertaining to the President’s levies on aluminum and steel. These tariffs have been widely reported to have gut punched American industry – allegedly proving that Mr. Trump’s approach to trade has been totally counterproductive. Yet just as usual, the performance of the nation’s main steel-using industries – supposedly the main victim of the tariffs, since the trade curbs saddled them with extra costs for major inputs they use – utterly demolishes such claims.

The table below shows the inflation-adjusted output changes for U.S. manufacturing as a whole and for the leading metals-using sectors. And the time periods of the columns represent the gains or losses reported last month between April (the first full month the metals tariffs were in place) and January; the revised April-January figures released this morning, and the preliminary April-February statistics also put out today.

The message they send couldn’t be clearer. The overall manufacturing slowdown comes through from the deterioration that took place between the April-January and April-February results. In fact, on a monthly basis, real manufacturing output declined by 0.40 percent in February – a weakening that followed a 0.49 percent drop in January.

The metals-using industries (including the durable manufacturing super-category in which they’re all found) all exhibited weaker sequential performance between January and February, too (except for aircraft and parts). But with the exception of autos and parts, and major appliances (which are also laboring under the burden of a separate tariff on large household laundry machines imposed in late January, 2018), since the onset of the metals tariffs, they’ve all grown faster than manufacturing as a whole (which is included as a control group since it contains many sectors that don’t use especially large amounts of metals).

Even more revealing are the differences between the old and new January figures. In every case – including for the laggards – they’ve been revised considerably higher. So their underlying strength still looks impressive, which would make no sense whatever if they were really suffering terribly from the metals tariffs.

                                                   old thru Jan.      new thru Jan.         thru Feb.

overall manufacturing:            +1.20 percent      +1.15 percent    +0.75 percent

durables manufacturing:          +1.65 percent     +1.88 percent    +1.78 percent

fabricated metals products:      +3.19 percent     +3.35 percent    +3.30 percent

machinery:                               +3.87 percent     +4.63 percent    +2.67 percent

automotive:                               -5.18 percent     -3.78 percent     -3.87 percent

major appliances:                      -2.87 percent     -1.42 percent     -1.79 percent

aircraft and parts:                     +6.35 percent    +7.22 percent    +7.98 percent

Because the Trump China tariffs didn’t begin until August, their impact on domestic American industry is much less clear. In addition, the list of goods on which levies were imposed doesn’t compare well with the industrial production figures because they use different systems for classifying manufacturing sectors. Finally, the number of Chinese import categories tariff-ed in starting in August was relatively small – only $50 billion worth.

The table below presents results from industries where the matchups look solid. This time, I’ve added a column that permits comparing the old and new data for the previous month. And as you can see, the numbers are all over the place. The February figures look especially ugly. But in two cases, the January output results have turned out to be stronger than previously reported (especially in industrial heating equipment).

                                                      old Aug.-Jan.      new Aug.-Jan.      Aug.-Feb.

overall manufacturing:                +0.36 percent      +0.31 percent     -0.09 percent

ball bearings:                                -0.09 percent      +0.05 percent     -0.10 percent

industrial heating equipment:       -3.86 percent      -0.40 percent     -4.17 percent

farm machinery and equipment:  +9.12 percent     +9.12 percent   -12.70 percent

Even here, however, so much volatility is evident that withholding judgment is the best approach for now. For example, the February monthly decrease in after-inflation farm machinery output (twenty percent even) was that sector’s worst such performance since January of 2007 (20.54 percent). That’s a more than twelve-year low. Yet the (unrevised) 6.47 percent monthly production improvement in January was the best since last April’s 13.69 percent. Similar volatility can be seen in industrial heating equipment.

So the trade alarmists will have to wait at least another month at least for convincing evidence that the Trump tariffs have backfired big-time against domestic industry. Not that’s stopped them from spreading this wholly false narrative till now.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The First Quarter Trade Deficit Kept Rising, & its Growth Rate Kept Falling

Tags

exports, GDP, Great Recession, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, Made in Washington trade deficit, real exports, real GDP, real growth, real imports, real trade deficit, recovery, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

For the second straight time, a higher estimate of the inflation-adjusted trade deficit weakened the real U.S. growth figure for the first quarter. According to the final (for now) read for the first quarter, the constant dollar trade shortfall was $656.8 billion – higher than the $650.9 billion reported in the previous growth figure for the first quarter. And partly because this increase turned net trade into a minor (0.04 percentage point) drag on growth, the quarter’s real GDP increase was marked down from a 2.16 percent annualized improvement to 1.98 percent.

Moreover, the new after-inflation trade deficit remained the second highest such quarterly figure since the $703.2 billion recorded for the third quarter of 2007 – just before the Great Recession began. It was also slightly higher the final (for now) fourth quarter level of $653.9 billion.

As with the second GDP report for the first quarter, the quarterly records for total exports and goods exports remained intact, but declined from the levels previously reported. The after-inflation services export figure, however, came in higher (at $690.8 billion on an annual basis) – and represented a new record as well. All of the latest import figures were upgraded from their previously reported record levels – the same pattern as with the first quarter’s second GDP report. Similarly, the sequential slowdowns in the growth of total imports and goods imports were not quite as great as previously reported (76.49 percent as opposed to 79.17 percent, and 83.99 percent versus 86.21 percent, respectively). But they were still the greatest such slowdowns since the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2009, respectively. The latter date came at the depths of the Great Recession.

Trade’s substantial drag on cumulative growth during the current U.S. recovery became heavier, according to the new GDP figures – reducing real growth by 9.99 percent ($301.2 billion), not the 9.41 percent reported in the second read. This trade drag was also up from the fourth quarter’s 9.82 percent ($287.6 billion). But the much larger hit to growth from the recovery-era increase in the Made in Washington deficit (which consists of trade flows impacted greatly by U.S. trade policy) actually decreased sequentially – from 18.38 percent of that cumulative growth ($538.81 billion) to 17.37 percent ($523.88 billion).

Here are the trade highlights from Thursday morning’s final (for now) report on first quarter GDP growth from the Commerce Department:

>The Commerce Department’s final read on gross domestic product (GDP) in the first quarter of this year revealed that America’s trade performance depressed the initially reported inflation-growth figure for the period for the second straight time.

>Partly because this latest estimate judges that the quarter’s after-inflation annualized trade gap was actually $656.8 billion rather than $650.9 billion, the period’s annualized growth figure was reduced from 2.16 percent to 1.98 percent.

>The constant dollar trade shortfall estimate was also (0.44 percent) higher than the fourth quarter of 2017’s $653.9 billion – and replaced it as the second highest such figure since the $703.2 billion during the third quarter of 2007 – just before the Great Recession began.

>Moreover, whereas the previous estimates pegged net trade as a minor contributor to growth during the first quarter (according to the second read, fueling 0.08 percentage points of the 2.16 percent real annualized growth), this final read determined that trade subtracted 0.04 percentage points from the lower 1.98 percent real annualized growth.

>As with the previous report on first quarter growth, levels of inflation-adjusted total exports and goods exports remained at record levels in the latest GDP data, but came in slightly lower than initially reported. Yet real services trade broke this pattern, as a higher export estimate lifted their new quarterly record higher.

> Real total exports are now judged to have been $2.2496 billion annualized, not the $2.2529 trillion estimated in the second first quarter read. As a result, the sequential increase on an annualized basis was 0.89 percent, not 1.04 percent.

>The new real total export total nonetheless remained the category’s fifth straight quarterly record.

>Real goods exports are now judged to have been $1.5622 trillion on an annual basis, not the $1.5696 trillion previously reported. As a result, the annualized sequential increase was 0.85 percent, not the 1.32 percent previously reported.

>But this too was a fifth straight quarterly record.

>Real services exports – the exception to the pattern – are now judged to have been $690.8 billion annualized, not the$687.4 billion previously reported. As a result, the annualized sequential increase was 0.96 percent, not 0.60 percent, and this category’s record performance improved further.

>On the import side, the pattern displayed in the previous read – quarterly records remaining intact but at lower levels – was repeated for all major categories.

>The first quarter’s total real import figure has now been revised up from $2.9038 trillion on an annual basis to $2.9065 billion. As a result, the sequential increase is now 0.79 percent, not 0.70 percent. The new total is still a second straight quarterly record.

>The goods imports total is now estimated at $2.4015 trillion annualized, up from $2.3985 trillion figure previously reported. As a result, the sequential growth is 0.65 percent, not the 0.56 percent previously reported, but the level is still a second straight quarterly record, too.

>Real services imports for the first quarter are now estimated at $503.3 billion annualized, not the $502.9 billion previously reported. As a result, their sequential growth is now 1.43 percent, not the 1.35 percent previously reported. But this new total is a record, too.

>Also as with the previous GDP report, the new figures show that both the total imports and the goods imports constant dollar sequential growth rates have experienced their biggest sequential slowdowns in years – though these slowdowns are now judged to be slightly more modest.

>Total real imports grew at a 0.79 percent quarter-to-quarter rate in the first quarter – faster than the previously reported 0.70 percent. But compared with the fourth quarter’s 3.36 percent rate, its still 76.49 percent lower – and it’s still the biggest such change since the 81.87 percent reported for the fourth quarter of 2010.

>Inflation-adjusted goods imports grew sequentially in the first quarter by 0.65 percent, not the 0.56 percent rate previously reported. But that rate was still 83.99 percent lower than the fourth quarter’s 4.06 percent – and the biggest such change since the 87.63 percent drop in the first quarter of 2009 – near the low point of the Great Recession.

>The upwardly revised first quarter real trade deficit figure increased the growth drag created by the increase in this shortfall during the current economic recovery.

>As of the previous GDP read, the real trade deficit’s widening since mid-2009 – when the current recovery began – reduced cumulative growth by 9.41 percent, or $284.6 billion.

>As of the latest GDP report, these figures have risen to 9.99 percent, and $301.2 billion.

>The new first quarter figures are also higher than the fourth quarter figures: 9.82 percent and $287.6 billion, respectively.

>The growth drag of the increase in the Made in Washington trade deficit – which focuses on the non-oil goods trade flows most heavily influenced by trade agreements and other trade policies – has been much greater during the recovery.

>The previous first quarter read pegged this growth drag at $535.09 billion – which had cut the recovery’s cumulative constant dollar GDP increase by 18.26 percent.

>The new read actually reduced the growth drag to 17.37 percent – or $523.88 billion in lost growth.

>And the new figures are also smaller than those for the fourth quarter – 18.38 percent, and $538.81 billion.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade was Biggest Obstacle to Faster 2015 U.S. Recovery

Tags

exports, GDP, goods, gross domestic product, imports, real growth, real trade deficit, recession, recovery, services, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s first official take on America’s fourth quarter, 2015 gross domestic product (GDP) showed that the trade deficit’s continued resurgence was the biggest drag on the period’s feeble 0.69 percent annualized real growth. In addition, since these figures have generated the first take on full-year 2015 performance, they revealed that trade took the biggest slice from its 2.38 percent constant-dollar growth – and undermined economic expansion by the greatest relative percentage since 2002. As a result, America’s trade performance has now slowed the nation’s growth during this historically slow recovery by nearly ten percent after inflation.

Moreover, total real exports fell year-on-year for the first time since the end of the last recession, in 2009, while inflation-adjusted goods and services imports continued growing and hit their latest annual record. The real trade deficit in 2015, consequently, rose to its highest annual level since 2008, and its annual deterioration was the worst such widening since 2000. As for the inflation-adjusted quarterly trade deficit, its October-to-December, 2015 total was the biggest since the first quarter of 2008.

Here are the trade highlights from this morning’s GDP report:

>Today’s GDP figures, which present the first read on the fourth quarter of 2015, show a mounting trade toll on the historically slow U.S. recovery even as the pace of overall growth slowed even further.

>According to the new GDP release, the fourth quarter inflation-adjusted goods and services trade deficit grew from $546.1 billion on an annualized basis to $566.5 billion – the worst such figure since the $550.4 billion registered in the second quarter of 2008.

>This trade gap increase cut the fourth quarter’s annualized real growth of 0.69 percent by 0.47 percentage points – an amount greater than that exacted by any other component of the gross domestic product.

>The new figures also revealed that trade was the biggest negative for growth for all of 2015. The deficit increased from $442.5 billion in 2014 to $547.1 billion – the highest annual total since 2008 and the worst annual deterioration in percentage terms (23.64 percent) since 2000. This change sliced 0.66 percentage points off the year’s inflation-adjusted 2.38 percent growth rate. 

>That represents the biggest annual trade bite out of economic growth in absolute terms since 2004. It’s also the biggest trade hit to growth in relative terms since a rising deficit subtracted 0.64 percentage points from 2002’s 1.80 percent after-inflation expansion.  The trade deficit’s growth was the biggest factor hindering 2015’s overall expansion as well.   

>In the fourth quarter of 2015, worsening net trade reduced that period’s annualized 1.97 percent growth by 0.26 percentage points, and for all of 2014, the cost was 0.18 percentage points out of 2.43 percent real growth.

>As a result of the major fourth quarter deterioration, trade’s drag on the current economic recovery has grown as well. Had the trade deficit shortfall simply held steady since this expansion began, in the second quarter of 2009, the economy’s cumulative expansion would have been 9.59 percent greater – $200.2 billion in constant dollars.

>Separate figures (from the Census Bureau) show that the recovery drag of that portion of the trade deficit strongly influenced by trade deals and related policies – the real non-oil goods deficit – has been much greater. Since the second quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2015, its increase has cut cumulative recovery-era growth by fully 24.43 percent. Had it simply held steady, cumulative recovery real growth would have been nearly $502.86 billion greater through the end of the third quarter.

>Next week’s release of December trade data will enable calculating trade’s effect on growth through the end of 2015.

> The new fourth quarter data showed that total U.S. inflation-adjusted exports fell sequentially from the third quarter’s $2.1211 trillion to $2.1078 trillion. The 0.63 percent decrease was the first quarter-to-quarter export drop since the winter-affected first quarter of the year.

>Yet the greater amount of after-inflation combined goods and services imports reached record territory again in the fourth quarter. Despite significantly slowing growth, their $2.6743 trillion level topped the third quarter total of $2.6672 trillion by 0.27 percent.

>Annualized real goods exports declined by 1.39 percent between the third and fourth quarters – from $1.4488 trillion to $1.4287 trillion. Coming on top of the third quarter sequential drop, real goods exports are now down consecutively for the first time since the end of the last recession, in the second quarter of 2009.

>By contrast, constant dollar goods imports inched up by 0.16 percent sequentially in the fourth quarter – from $2.1860 trillion to $2.1895 trillion. The total represented another new all-time quarterly high.

>The much smaller services export and import totals also set new records in the fourth quarter.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trade’s Recovery-Slowing Impact Revised Up in New GDP Report

Tags

exports, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, non-oil goods deficit, real growth, real trade deficit, recovery, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Trade’s drag on recent economic growth and on the current economic recovery increased in the third quarter of this year, according to today’s second revision of the July-September gross domestic product (GDP) figures – even as growth itself was revised down. Since the recovery began in mid-2009, the real trade deficit’s continued rebound has now cut cumulative inflation-adjusted U.S. growth by 8.73 percent, or nearly $180 billion.

The new GDP figures also still showed that the after-inflation trade deficit in the third quarter hit its highest level since early 2008. In addition, real overall exports continued their retreat from the new quarterly record levels revealed in the original third quarter figures, but the new record reported for real overall imports rose even higher. The new record set by goods imports increased again as well. Small upward revisions to levels of services exports and imports pushed each to even higher all-time highs.

Here are the trade highlights from this morning’s GDP report:

>Today’s GDP figures, which present the third and final (for now) read on the third quarter of 2015, show that trade’s damage to the current U.S. economic recovery was even greater than reported in the previous set of data.

>According to the new GDP release, the third quarter inflation-adjusted goods and services trade deficit hit $546.1 billion on an annualized basis – higher than the second quarter’s final (for now) $534.6 billion, and the worst such figure since the $550.4 billion registered in the second quarter of 2008.

>As a result, trade’s impact on growth changed from a net contribution of 0.18 percentage points of a 3.90 percent annualized gain in the second quarter to a 0.26 percent net subtraction from 2.0 percent growth.

>Moreover, the new GDP figures show that the growth of the inflation-adjusted trade deficit has continued to slow the overall economy’s real growth since the current weak recovery began in mid-2009. Had the trade shortfall simply held steady, the economy’s cumulative expansion would have been 8.73 percent greater – $179.8 billion.

>Separate figures (from the Census Bureau) show that the recovery drag of that portion of the trade deficit strongly influenced by trade deals and related policies – the real non-oil goods deficit – has been much greater. Since the second quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2015, its increase has cut cumulative recovery-era growth by fully 24.43 percent. Had it simply held steady, cumulative recovery real growth would have been nearly $502.86 billion greater through the end of the third quarter.

> The new third quarter data again revised total U.S. inflation-adjusted exports down from an annualized $2.1221 trillion to $2.1211 trillion – below the all-time high of $2.1239 trillion (achieved in the fourth quarter of 2014). Combined real goods and services exports in the second quarter were $2.1175 trillion – 0.17 percent less.

>Yet the greater amount of total real imports reached record territory again, too. At $2.6672 trillion, was 0.57 percent higher than the second quarter’s $2.6521 trillion – the former high.

>Annualized real goods exports for the third quarter were revised down again as well – from $1.4502 trillion to $1.4488 trillion. As a result, these exports are down from the second quarter’s $1.4520 trillion, and well off the peak level of $1.4743 trillion achieved in the fourth quarter of 2014.

>The revisions, however, pushed the new record for annualized inflation-adjusted goods imports higher still – from $2.1853 trillion to $2.1860 trillion.

>The new records set for real services exports and imports both remained intact in the new third quarter figures as well, although both were revised slightly higher.

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Third Quarter Growth Picks Up but Trade Bite Deepens – Along with Toll on Entire Recovery

Tags

GDP, gross domestic product, inflation-adjusted growth, real growth, real trade deficit, recovery, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Trade’s drag on recent economic growth and on the current economic recovery increased in the third quarter of this year, according to today’s first revision of the July-September gross domestic product (GDP) figures – although growth itself accelerated. Since the recovery began in mid-2009, the real trade deficit’s continued rebound has now cut cumulative inflation-adjusted U.S. growth by 8.62 percent – or nearly $178 billion on an annualized basis.

The new GDP figures also showed that the after-inflation trade deficit in the third quarter hit its highest level since early 2008. In addition, real overall exports retreated from the new quarterly record levels revealed in the previous GDP figures, but the new record reported for real overall imports rose even higher. The new record set by goods imports increased as well, and despite small downward revisions to each, levels of services exports and imports remained at all-time highs.

Here are the trade highlights from this morning’s GDP report:

>Today’s GDP figures, which present the second read on the third quarter of 2015, show that trade’s impact on American economic growth was more damaging than reported in the initial estimate.

>According to the new GDP figures, the third quarter inflation-adjusted goods and services trade deficit hit $544.1 billion on an annualized basis – higher than the second quarter’s final (for now) $534.6 billion, and the worst such figure since the $550.4 billion registered in the second quarter of 2008.

>As a result, trade’s impact on growth changed from a net contribution of 0.18 percentage points of a 3.90 percent annualized gain in the second quarter, and an initially reported 0.03 subtraction from a 1.50 percent third quarter gain, to a 0.22 percent subtraction from a 2.10 percent increase.

>Moreover, the new GDP figures show that the growth of the inflation-adjusted trade deficit has continued to slow the overall economy’s real growth since the current weak recovery began in mid-2009. Had the trade shortfall simply held steady, the economy’s cumulative expansion would have been 8.62 percent greater – $177.8 billion on an annualized basis.

>Separate figures (from the Census Bureau) show that the recovery drag of that portion of the trade deficit strongly influenced by trade deals and related policies – the real non-oil goods deficit – has been much greater. Since the second quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2015, its increase has cut cumulative recovery-era growth by fully 24.36 percent. Had it simply held steady, cumulative recovery real growth would have been nearly $502.37 billion greater on an annualized basis through the end of the third quarter.

> The new third quarter data revised total U.S. inflation-adjusted exports down from $2.1275 trillion annualized to $2.1221 trillion. The previous figure was a record. The revised figure is below the all-time high of $2.1239 trillion (achieved in the fourth quarter of 2014). Combined real goods and services exports in the second quarter were $2.1175 trillion – 0.22 percent lower.

>Yet the greater amount of total real imports reached record territory again, too. At $2.6662 trillion, it was 0.53 percent higher than the second quarter’s $2.6521 trillion – the former high. 

>Annualized real goods exports for the third quarter were revised down as well – from $1.4545 trillion to $1.4502 trillion. As a result, whereas the initial set of third quarter figures showed a goods exports increase over the second quarter total ($1.4520 trillion), the revisions show a sequential decrease. Goods exports peaked in the fourth quarter of 2014 at $1.4743 trillion.

>The revisions, however, kept intact the record for annualized inflation-adjusted goods imports initially reported for the third quarter – and modestly increased the total. Previously reported at $2.1823 trillion annualized, the third quarter amount is now pegged at $2.1853 trillion.

>The new records set for real services exports and imports both remained intact in the new third quarter figures as well, although both were revised slightly lower.