(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Start of a V-Shaped Recovery So Far for Manufacturing Production, Too?

Tags

aircraft, automotive, autos, Boeing, CCP Virus, durable goods, Federa Reserve, inflation-adjusted output, manufacturing, motor vehicles, non-durable goods, real output, recession, recovery, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The May Federal Reserve figures on inflation-adjusted U.S. manufacturing production were released this morning, and what stood out to me right away was how closely the main results resembled those of the remarkable May jobs report from the Labor Department. Not that the surprise factor for manufacturing output was anywhere near that for the jobs report. And of course factories don’t reopen or ramp up production in lockstep with gains in employment (which speak volumes about the economic fortunes of many of their customers). But consider the following figures and what they could be signaling about the pace of recovery:

On a monthly basis, as the CCP Virus pandemic’s effects peaked for the time being, the private sector shed 15.37 percent of its jobs in April, and for manufacturing, the figure was 10.34 percent. That month, real manufacturing output plunged sequentially by 15.66 percent.

In May, as the economy’s reopening sped up, private sector payrolls expanded by 2.86 percent, manufacturing saw a 1.96 percent net jobs gain, and manufacturing production rose by 3.83 percent. It looks an awful lot like an economy that’s bouncing back pretty quickly so far from the worst of the virus-induced shutdowns, but that still has far to go before returning to normal. Call it the possible start of a “V.”

Something else that comes through loud and clear about the latest Fed manufacturing reports – including today’s: They’re being remarkably driven by the stunning gyrations of the automotive sector, and especially price-adjusted vehicles output levels. In fact, in April, production of autos and light trucks – which literally had collapsed according to last month’s preliminary figures – have been revised down to as close to zero as you can get.

But before detailing those results, let’s return to 30,000 feet. That May monthly after-inflation manufacturing output increase was the biggest on record – and by a long shot. But April’s sequential nosedive was revised from 13.28 percent – and therefore is even more of a record-breaker than previously thought. And it’s only slight consolation that the March drop was reduced to 5.27 percent from 5.53 percent. (It was originally reported as 6.27 percent.) At least as bad, as of May, American factories’ monthly output in real terms was their lowest since Great Recession-y July, 2009.

Most of the action continues to be concentrated in the durable goods super-sector, which led manufacturing down in March and especially April, and led it up in May.

As with industry as a whole, the new monthly durable goods production drop for March was smaller than previously estimated (7.73 percent rather than 8.23 percent) and the April disaster was bigger than first judged (with constant dollar output down 21.64 percent rather than 19.27 percent).

Real output in the supersector increased by 5.83 percent sequentially in May – but that record monthly rise still left absolute production levels at their lowest since November, 2009, another Great Recession month.

And the automotive sector continues leading the fluctuations in durable goods production. The revisions for vehicles and parts combined for March and April were both slightly worse than previously judged (30.03 percent vs 29.96 percent for the former, and 76.47 percent versus 71.69 percent for the latter).

The May results (for now preliminary, as are all the May numbers – with April’s set for one more revision next month)? After-inflation output surged by 120.83 percent. That’s not a typo. For comparison’s sake, this latest jump smashed the old monthly record (29.95 percent, in July, 2009) by a factor of four. Even so, inflation-adjusted vehicle and parts output hasn’t been this low since July, 1983 – 33 years ago

As for the numbers for vehicles alone, they’ve been positively fantasmagorical. Cutting to the chase, “nosedived” and “careening” don’t begin to describe the April results. That month, auto and light truck output after inflation practically disappeared – standing 98.87 percent lower than in March and slightly worse than initially reported). Similarly, May’s improvement was less a rebound or even a rocket ride than a restart. What else can you reasonably call a 3,187.39 percent increase? And still, in absolute terms, that only brought output back to its worst level since February, 1982.

This astounding automotive performance, moreover, has clearly moved the needle for manufacturing as a whole. Without the April automotive tailspin, price-adjusted manufacturing production was off by 11.94 percent, not 15.66 percent. In May, without the recovery of the sector, U.S. constant dollar manufacturing production advanced by 1.96 percent – just about half the rate of the 3.83 percent increase recorded with automotive.

The May Fed manufacturing report left the relatively mild March output downturn in the non-durable goods super-sector unrevised at 2.64 percent. But the April decrease was estimates to be worse:  9.59 percent rather than 8.23 percent.

Non-durable factory production rose by 2.07 percent sequentially in May, but interestingly, that advance was only the biggest since October, 2017 2.28 percent – when lots of oil refineries and petrochemicals-using industries came back on line after that autumn’s hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

Finally, some genuinely puzzling results seem to be recorded for the aircraft and aircraft parts sectors, which were troubled for months before the CCP Virus struck by Boeing’s safety woes . Whereas in last month’s Fed manufacturing report, the March monthly inflation-adjusted drop in these industries was reported at 12.09 percent, this morning it was reported to be just 5.38 percent.

More reasonably, the April sequential decline was judged to be slightly smaller – 28.31 percent rather than 28.88 percent. And May’s on-month recovery is estimated to be a robust 9.43 percent.

Since this spring’s manufacturing slump and rebound so closely resembles that of the jobs market, it’s fitting that the same questions hover over it. Will the comeback last, or are we seeing the real economy version of a stock market dead cat bounce? Like the Fed itself, RealityChek‘s judgments will be data-dependent.

Making News: New Daily Caller Piece On-Line on the CCP Virus and the Economy

Tags

bankruptcies, CCP Virus, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, DailyCaller.com, deflation, economy, exports, Im-Politic, Jobs, manufacturing, public health, real estate, recession, recovery, rent, reopening, restart, restaurants, retail, small business, testing, travel, unemployment, vaccines, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that my latest freelance article has just been published on the popular DailyCaller.com news site.  The title pretty much says it all:  “Don’t Expect A V-Shaped Recovery From Coronavirus,” and you can read it at this link.

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Respectable Case for Optimism?

Tags

CCP Virus, China, consumer confidence, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, lockdown, recovery, reopening, restart, restaurants, retail, second wave, shutdown, social distancing, Sweden, testing, vaccines, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

At the risk of being (undeservedly) tarred as a CCP Virus pollyanna, I can’t help but being struck by the some new evidence that the U.S. economy’s recovery from its pandemic-induced swoon will be faster than widely feared. In fact, I still share these fears to some degree. But I can’t ignore increasing signs to the contrary.

To be clear, this evidence has little to do with the subject of yesterday’s post. Just because data can be cited showing significant national progress in beating back the virus threat doesn’t necessarily mean that a more so-called “V-shaped” economic rebound is on the way. The same goes for the impact of this progress on the economy reopening decisions of individual U.S. states – even though the more decline seen in numbers of new cases (despite gains in testing that should be revealing much more infection), numbers of deaths, and numbers of virus-related hospitalizations, the more reopening obviously will be seen.

Nor are my views being shaped by the strong rebound seen in U.S. stock markets so far (including today so far), or by the newly bullish recovery views voiced last night on “Sixty Minutes” by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. And this post isn’t even driven by the latest news about vaccine progress (though such reports will clearly help as long as the results continue being validated).

The reason: I’ve been convinced that the key to the recovery’s strength will be Americans’ willingness to start patronizing businesses in an economy where most activity – and most income earning opportunities – depend on consumer spending. So I’ve put considerable stock in predictions that, even though all the objective conditions can show that a return to normality will be safe, too many Americans will remain too fearful to boost the economy significantly.

I also take seriously the idea that all the restrictions on visiting retail stores (including restaurants) and personal service businesses will limit their customer flow either simply by forcing them to operate substantially below capacity, or by dissuading many customers from visiting in the first place, and thereby sharply reducing impulse consuming. Further, I’m well aware that the much more modest shock administered to Americans by the Great Recession triggered by the 2007-08 financial crisis was painfully slow to wear off. (See here and here where I write about reasons for recovery pessimism.)

In addition, the experiences of other countries that started reopening earlier has reenforced consumer caution concerns. Sweden, for example, has imposed fewer economic restrictions than any other major country. But this survey by the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. reports that consumer spending has dropped significantly anyway, and may not recover for months. China claims that it’s beaten the virus and its regime has been easing factory lockdowns since February. But as of late April, retail sales were still way down.

Finally, there’s the second wave threat, which could kneecap the economy as temperatures start dropping in the fall even if summer does witness a decent bounce back toward pre-virus consuming.

So the case against a relatively quick recovery with real legs is still awfully strong.

But don’t overlook reasons for more optimism. One that’s nothing less than amazing: The piece in this morning’s Washington Post reporting that even though virus testing is now much more widely available in the United States than previously, Americans are far from rushing to capitalize on these opportunities. Even accepting the various reasons offered in this article (e.g., not enough Americans know that the situation has changed; there’s too much mistrust of medical providers in some U.S. communities, particularly African-Americans), it’s difficult at least for me to conclude anything else but that many in the United States simply aren’t concerned enough about the pandemic to take this precaution. After all, if they were panic-stricken, wouldn’t they be following every bit of news about the supply of tests with baited breath?

Perhaps more important, the more news that emerges that the CCP Virus is much less lethal than early reports suggested, the (understandably) less concerned about infection more and more Americans seem to be.    

Then there are all the reports of Americans, whether in states that have eased lockdowns more vigorously and those that haven’t, violating social distance guidelines, either by not wearing masks where they’re supposed to, or seemingly ignoring social distancing rules in public place – and indeed returning to restaurants and bars and beaches in pretty impressive numbers. These reports are anecdotal, and therefore should be viewed with lots of caution. Also, please don’t assume that I’m endorsing this behavior! But there sure seems to be a lot of it, these reports also seem related to growing evidence of the virus’ relatively modest death rates, and and as an old adage goes, when enough anecdotes appear, they become data. 

Finally are several indicators pointing to an actual, non-trivial comeback in economic activity, and for a variety of sectors. This account mentions encouraging signs from the tech sector to the automotive industry. This article presents evidence of bottoming even in hard-hit bricks and mortars retail stores and restaurants. And click here for information on the housing industry.

Of course, the references above to “bottoming” could still be entirely consistent with pessimistic predictions of a painfully slow climb back to pre-virus prosperity. But I still find myself wondering if, having seen the overpoweringly depressive effect of various official edicts literally to halt and outlaw much economic activity, Americans might experience a reasonably powerful growth effect from their withdrawal – not to mention declining fears that infection is a death sentence.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: How Bad Will it Get?

Tags

Baby Boom, CCP Virus, Cold War, coronavirus, COVID 19, Edward Harrison, Federal Reserve, Great Depression, Great Recession, health security, military spending, moral hazard, recession, recovery, secular stagnation, small business, start-ups, technology, Trump, uncertainty, unemployment, World War II, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

How bad economically? That’s a CCP Virus-related question everyone’s understandably asking these days. In fact, last night one of my social media friends expressed the super-bear case pretty compellingly:

“I can’t see any way this is not going to destroy us. No one will have any money, so they won’t buy anything, won’t pay their bills, can’t pay rent or mortgages. No spending power means no employment. More layoffs. certainly as soon as stores open there wil be a rush to sell everything, a rush to normal, hoping for the best, but I think this is pretty much The End of life as we know it.”

And an economy-watcher I know with an unusually good feel for finance is awfully pessimistic, too – and has been right so far about the virus’ impact on output, employment, and the markets.

I’m feeling even less confident than usual in my economy crystal ball (that’s a low bar). The main reason of course is that the current U.S. nosedive, as I (and nearly everyone else) have observed, isn’t a standard recession or depression. That is, it hasn’t been caused either by some built-in weakness in the economy that finally becomes too big to ignore or paper over, or similar problems in the financial system that wind up wrecking the “real economy.” We can’t even blame the current crisis on some outside economic shock, like the boost in global oil prices that wreaked such economic havoc in the 1970s.

Even so, here are four somewhat related, extremely tentative thoughts that I hope will help readers form their own judgments about the American economy’s future. Spoiler alert: They’re pretty pessimistic.

First, the fundamentally biological nature of the crisis creates the kind of uncertainty that’s unprecedented in modern times, and that consumers, businesses, and investors will hate even more than usual. For example, what if there’s a second wave? Or a third? How will these three groups of economic actors respond to attempted restarts of economic activity that, however gradual or rolling, turn out to be premature?

Worse, what if the CCP Virus is here to stay for the time being, and treatments can only become good enough to reduce it to the status of a really nasty flu? And what if it mutates into something requiring qualitatively different cures?

Second, because of all these possible biology-rooted uncertainties, I fear that many of the standard arguments for expecting a relatively quick, strong rebound should be thrown out the window. All of them, after all – including President Trump’s – apparently assume that the timeout mandated in most of the economy’s consumption (and that therefore inevitably undermines its business spending) is creating lots of frustrated demand that will burst into actual spending once the crisis passes.

One big historical precedent cited: the aftermath of World War II. At that time, officials inside the federal government feared that growth would fizzle at best for two main reasons. First, the massive boost to growth and employment delivered by wartime military spending would dramatically fade. Second, this pessimism was no doubt greatly reenforced by the nation’s immediate pre-war experience – a lengthy and deep depression that showed no signs of ending until the global fascist threat inspired a pre-Pearl Harbor military buildup.

But after the war, consumption came back with a vengeance – because the main threats on everyone’s mind were decisively defeated; because so many Americans had lots of income to spend; because Washington laid the ground for more income-earning with programs like the G.I. Bill, along with war-time advances in science and technology that boasted phenomenal peacetime uses; and because baby-making boomed along with consumption, juicing demand for more housing in particular.

And let’s not forget the Cold War! The household spending binge did slow in 1947 and 1948. But by 1949, defense spending began rising again, and it really took off from 1951 on, once the Korean War in particular convinced policymakers that a global Communist threat was alive and here to stay.

Today, however, determining when the major threat is finally over is much more difficult. Unemployment is sure to rise much higher than the 5.9 percent pre-Korean War peak (in 1949), meaning that not only will incentives to save remain stronger, but that much more income is being lost. And nothing like a post-World War II Baby Boom was even in sight before the CCP Virus struck. Indeed, the arrows were pointing in the opposite direction. A post-virus repeat seems unimaginable.

The one interesting possible reason for purely economic optimism? A new military spending surge – perhaps spurred by worries about China? And new healthcare products investment might jump as well, possibly boosted by government incentives, to prevent a repeat of current supply shortages.

The third consideration weighing on my mind is the separation factor. Even if post-virus improvement is solid, I wonder how sustainable it will be. The main reason is that, at least during past episodes of major job loss (e.g., the last decade’s Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis), many of the unemployed face big difficulties returning to work in any form, and particular difficulties finding work at previous pay levels. Because the longer unemployment lasts, the harder these obstacles generally become, and because of the likely rate joblessness is likely to hit, this separation factor could become considerable even if unemployment insurance and other income supports do turn out to be generous enough to sustain such economic victims until the nation reaches “the other side.” 

The separation factor, moreover, may go beyond workers. I don’t by any means rule out the possibility that significant numbers of small business owners may call it quits, too – either because cratering demand for their products and services will kill off their enterprises, because the the government aid being offered doesn’t cover all their losses for long enough, or because they conclude that applying for the aid just isn’t worth the candle.

Sure, new start-ups will fill part of this gap. But all of it? Not if the abundant pre-crisis evidence of a significant drop-off in such entrepreneurism is any indication.

Fourth, also reenforcing the bear case: Although the roots of the current economic mess are dramatically different from those of the last near-meltdown and recession, the “whatever it takes” response of the federal government and the Federal Reserve are remarkably similar. As pointed out by Edward Harrison, the economy- and finance-watcher I cited above, on the one hand, the authorities probably don’t have a choice. On the other, this thick, pervasive safety net did produce an epidemic of “moral hazard” – financial decisions in particular that turn out to be bad but that initially look smart because confidence in some form of bailout reduces the perceived risks and costs of mistakes.

As I explained previously, the last outbreak of moral hazard took a painful pre-virus economic toll, as the resulting inefficient use of capital helped produce  one of the weakest economic recoveries American history. In fact, it’s produced a theory that I personally find as convincing as it is depressing (personally): secular stagnation. It holds that the economy has become so fundamentally unproductive and inefficient that the only way it’s been able to generate even adequate (not especially strong) levels of growth has been for government to inflate bubbles of various kinds (with all its moral hazard-creating spending and guarantees) that, of course, eventually burst. So it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to believe that the upcoming recovery will be similarly feeble.

Even worse, according to Harrison, even the current official backstopping might not suffice to prevent defaults by the financially weakest businesses – which would generate their own harmful spillover effects.

I’m not saying that there’s no case for optimism – at least cautious optimism. The overall long-term historical momentum for improvement in living conditions the world over is very impressive. As a result, doom-saying has a lousy record in the post-World War II period in particular. Technological advance isn’t going to stop, and may not even slow much. Maybe most important, at least in the medium-term, the human desire to acquire and consume shows no signs of having vanished.

So maybe the safest conclusion to come to (however unsatisfyingly timid): This time won’t be completely different. But don’t bet on a simple, and particularly a quick, return to pre-virus times.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. After-Inflation Wages Could Still Use More Inflation

Tags

Barack Obama, election 2020, inflation-adjusted wages, manufacturing, private sector, real wages, recovery, Trump, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s real wages figures from the Labor Department (for December) contained an unusually diverse grab bag of results, and with a presidential election year now officially underway, perhaps the most newsworthy are those that could well affect the race for the White House – and which on balance seem unfavorable to President Trump.

In addition, though, some other results undermine a major belief about how after-inflation paychecks have fared during the current (record length) economic recovery versus its two immediate predecessors.

Not that the news was all bad for the President and his supporters (and anyone else rooting for a stronger American economy). Yes, overall, inflation-adjusted wages in the private sector dipped sequentially for the second time in three months – by 0.09 percent. (The Labor Department doesn’t track real public sector wages because their trends say more about politicians’ decisions than about economic fundamentals).

But if these preliminary figures hold tightly enough, the 2019 year-on-year improvement of 0.64 percent will be higher than 2018’s 0.56 percent increase.

At the same time, wage growth decelerated throughout 2019 – from 0.37 percent between January and June to 0.27 percent between June and December.

Real manufacturing wages fared better, continuing a year-long trend. Month-to-month in December they climbed by 0.18 percent, and their year-on-year increase and improvement were stronger than that of the private sector, too. The latest annual rise was 0.74 percent – up from the previous year’s flatline. And throughout 2019, they increased at the same 0.37 percent rates during both halves of the year.

But the results were less encouraging for non-supervisory workers in both the private sector overall and in manufacturing. By certain measures, paychecks for the lowest paid U.S. workers have been improving faster than those for the workforce overall. And using the Labor Department’s methodology of distinguishing supervisory from non-supervisory workers provides some support for that finding.

For example, on an annual basis, in 2019 and 2018, inflation-adjusted wages increased faster for both non-supervisory manufacturing and blue-collar workers than those wages for all workers, as shown here:

                                     Total private     N/S private     Total mfg      N/S mfg

Year-on-year, 2019:         +0.64%           +0.75%          +0.74%        +0.45%

Year-on-year, 2018:        +0.56%           +1.63%                0%          +1.14%

Yet the table also shows 2018-19 deceleration for both groups.

Moreover, on month in December, real wages for these blue-collar workers performed worse in absolute terms than for all private sector and manufacturing workers – actually falling by 0.21 percent for the former (the biggest decline since October, 2018’s 0.22 percent drop) and increasing by just 0.11 percent for the latter.

And deceleration continued through the year. Between the first and second halves of 2019, constant dollar wages increases for the private sector fell from 0.53 percent to 0.21 percent, and from 0.23 percent to 0.22 percent for manufacturing.

The impact of Boeing’s safety-related woes on aircraft manufacturing per se and on the company’s huge domestic supply chain could explain some of these disappointing figures for industry. But so could the uncertainties created either by Mr. Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies, or by their ragged implementation, or both. Further, as the numbers indicate, real wage weakness isn’t simply a manufacturing problem.

Perhaps most important for Mr. Trump, real wages’ performance during the first 34 months of his term in office (starting with February, 2017, his first full month), have lagged their increases during the most comparable period in Barack Obama’s presidency – his last 34 months in office (ending in January, 2017). Here are the results:

                                       Total private      N/S private      Total mfg        N/S mfg

1^st 34 Trump months:         +2.53%           +2.72%           +0.65%          +2.77%

last 34 Obama months:      +3.50%           +3.97%          +3.05%           +2.97%

Finally, the new real wages data show that when it comes to this gauge, the current economic recovery stacks up unexpectedly well with the two previous expansions where a reasonable amount of statistics exist – for non-supervisory workers. The comparison is especially striking between the current expansion and the 1990s expansion – which is widely viewed as an excellent one for both the economy and America’s employees.

                                                               Private    N/S private    mfg     N/S mfg

1990s expansion (2Q 91-1Q 01):             n/a           +6.37%       n/a      +2.18%

bubble expansion (4Q 01-4Q 07):           n/a            +0.35%       n/a      -2.77%

current expansion (2Q 09 – present):  +6.30%        +6.79%   +1.59%   +3.01%

Unfortunately for President Trump and Trump-ers, though, this longer-term picture isn’t likely to impress voters as much as more recent developments. And when it comes to workers’ after-inflation wages, he clearly has more work to do.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Those New GDP Numbers Keep Showing Healthier Trade-Related Growth Progress Under Trump

Tags

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

So much data were released yesterday morning on the U.S. economy’s growth rate – not only the initial read on the second quarter of this year, but revisions going back to 2014 – that it’s impossible to explore all the results and their implications in one post. As a result, I’ll focus today on the main messages being sent by how the tariff-centric Trump trade policies are affecting growth.

In a nutshell, the big takeaway for me was that, despite the sizable increase in the inflation-adjusted trade deficit in the second quarter of this year (to an annualized total of $978.70 billion – the second biggest ever, after the $983 billion mark hit in the fourth quarter of last year), the economy kept indicating that it can grow – and pretty strongly – without racking up big increases in trade gap. In other words, the United States is regaining the ability to expand at acceptable rates without getting deeper into hock. 

Still, there’s a major uncertainty hovering over these results: Signs continue that they’re being distorted by what’s called tariff front-running (accelerating purchases of imports in order to avoid announced or threatened duties), and the consequent effects on building and reducing business inventories. And since tariff threats hang over not only hundreds of billions of dollars of goods imports from China, but rhetorically anyway over automotive imports from all over the world, import and inventory levels could well remain volatile. Moreover, don’t forget the potential effect on exports: If President Trump carries through with tariff threats, foreign economies are likely to impose retaliatory levies on American goods, and curb these sales.

So far, though, so good.

As in recent reports on trade and the gross domestic product (or GDP – what economists define as “the economy”), this post will compare the economy’s growth rate with the growth rate of the trade deficit during two recent similar periods of time – the statistical year (e.g., four straight quarters) during which growth was fastest when former President Barack Obama was in office, and the statistical year during which growth has been fastest so far during President Trump’s administration.

Even with the latest revisions, the fastest statistical Obama growth year was between the second quarter of 2014 and the second quarter of 2015. Adjusted for inflation (the most closely followed GDP measure), the economy grew by 3.35 percent over those four quarters – just a little less than the 3.37 percent previously estimated. And during that period, the real trade deficit rose by 21.34 percent (a little more slowly than the 21.55 percent previously estimated).

Before today’s revisions, the fastest Trump era growth stretch took place between the first quarter of 2017 and the first quarter of 2018. But that 3.18 percent after inflation growth has now been downgraded all the way down to 2.65 percent. But growth between the second quarters of 2017 and 2018 has been revised up – to 3.20 percent. So there’s a new Trump growth champ.

But even though the Trump growth spurt has been only a little slower than its Obama counterpart, the story with the trade deficit was strikingly different. For during the Trump spurt, the gap widened by only 6.34 percent. That’s less than a third as fast as under Obama.

In other words, constant dollar growth under President Trump has taken place while piling up much less debt than similar growth during the Obama years. And growth that’s less reliant on debt is growth that’s a lot healthier and more sustainable.

Trump-era growth looks all the more sustainable upon realizing that during Mr. Trump’s administration so far, robust growth (at least by recent standards) has been much more self-reliant than during the Obama administration – at least until very recently. The table below shows the annual (calendar year, from fourth quarter to fourth quarter) real growth rates during the Obama and Trump presidencies starting in 2010 (the first full calendar yer of the current economic recovery); the growth rate of the after-inflation trade deficits, and the ratios between these two figures for each year:

Obama yrs          real GDP       real trade deficit      deficit growth to GDP growth

10-11:              1.61 percent       0.85 percent                         0.53:1

11-12:              1.47 percent      -0.92 percent                       -0.63:1

12-13:              2.61 percent     -8.89 percent                       -3.41:1

13-14:              2.88 percent    23.36 percent                        8.11:1

14-15:              1.90 percent    21.83 percent                      13.07:1

15-16:              2.03 percent    10.87 percent                       5:35:1

Trump years

16-17:             2.80 percent      5.90 percent                       2.11:1

17-18:             2.52 percent    11.22 percent                       4.45:1

The table shows that only once (between 2012 and 2013) did the Obama-era economy display any ability to grow faster than the humdrum rate of two percent with the trade deficit’s growth restrained. (In fact, it shrunk significantly.) Once growth accelerated (the following year), the trade shortfall exploded, and its rate of increase, along with those ratios, stayed high even as growth itself cooled notably.

Moreover, without pronounced tariff front-running, the 2017-18 Trump trade deficit figure and the resulting ratio both would likely have been much lower. And economic growth looks even more self-reliant, and therefore healthier, so far this year, as the follo  wing table shows:

                               real GDP      real trade deficit     deficit growth to GDP growth

4Q 18-1Q 19:       3.06 percent    -3.97 percent                       -1.30:1

1Q 19-2Q 19:       2.04 percent     3.68 percent                         1.80:1

The Trump record looks even better when presented on a rolling four quarters basis, starting with that peak Obama growth period between the second quarter of 2014 and the second quarter of 2015, and ending with the last such period – between the second quarter of 2018 and the second quarter of 2019:

                              real GDP      real trade deficit      deficit growth to GDP growth

2Q 14-2Q 15:    3.35 percent      21.34 percent                       6.37:1

3Q 14-3Q 15:    2.44 percent      30.60 percent                     12.54:1

4Q 14-4Q 15:    1.90 percent      21.83 percent                     11.49:1

1Q 15-1Q 16:    1.62 percent      11.72 percent                       7.23:1

2Q 15-2Q 16:    1.34 percent        9.59 percent                       7.16:1

3Q 15-3Q 16:    1.56 percent        2.42 percent                       1.55:1

4Q 15-4Q16:     2.03 percent     10.87 percent                        5.35:1

1Q 16-1Q 17:    2.10 percent       6.92 percent                        3.30:1

Trump

2Q 16-2Q 17:    2.16 percent    11.71 percent                        5.42:1

3Q 16-3Q 17:    2.42 percent      9.50 percent                       3.93:1

4Q 16-4Q 17:    2.80 percent     5.90 percent                        2.11:1

1Q 17-1Q 18:    2.86 percent     6.34 percent                       2.22:1

2Q 17-2Q 18:    3.20 percent     0.06 percent                       0.19:1

3Q 17-3Q 18:    3.13 percent   15.44 percent                      4.93:1

4Q 17-4Q 18:    2.52 percent   11.22 percent                      4.45:1

1Q 18-1Q 19:    2.65 percent     6.76 percent                      2.55:1

2Q 18-2Q 19:    2.29 percent   15.07 percent                      6.58:1

Though the figures fluctuate significantly, the difference under two different presidents at roughly the same phase of the same economic expansion is at least as significant. To start, the only time that annual real growth under Obama topped three percent during this stretch, the inflation-adjusted trade deficit soared 6.37 times faster. Under Trump, the economy has enjoyed two such periods. During the first, the real trade deficit barely budged. During the second, it rose 4.93 times faster than the economy.

During these Obama years, the after-inflation trade deficit’s annual growth rate slipped under ten percent three times. Real annual GDP growth never bested 2.10 percent during any of them. During the Trump years, sub-ten percent annual growth for the real trade deficit has occurred five times. Real annual GDP increased during those years at rates between 2.42 percent and 3.20 percent. The worst Obama ratio has been 12.54 percent. The worst Trump ratio has been 6.58 percent (coming during the most recent statistical year, and possibly indicating tariff front-running). 

Has President Trump managed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit as such, or made the U.S. economy, and especially strong growth, completely self-sufficient, and therefore free of debt dependence (in terms of parts of the economy where this is feasible, as opposed to, say, tropical fruit)? Of course not. The nearly $20 trillion American economy is obviously a supertanker that isn’t turned around easily or quickly. But it’s clear that whereas the United States was moving ever further from those goals before Mr. Trump was inaugurated, it’s now moving closer. Just as clear: If the President stays the course on tariffs (much less increase and/or broaden them), progress will likely continue.      

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Job Quality Takes a Turn for the Worse

Tags

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

Here’s how bad America’s employment performance has been so far this year. Not only has job creation lagged quantitatively. But by one key measure that RealityChek has followed for years, job quality worsened, too. Specifically, after falling significantly during the first two years of the Trump administration as a share of total hiring, job creation in what I call the subsidized private sector of the economy is up sharply.

To review, the subsidized private sector – dominated by healthcare services – consists of those industries that are typically classified (including by federal government statisticians) as private sector industries, but whose levels of activity (including job creation) are determined largely by politicians’ decisions about levels of government support, not market forces.

This observation doesn’t imply any conclusion that subsidized private sector jobs are merit-less. But it does reflect the understandable and commonly held belief that the genuine private sector is the economy’s main source of productivity growth and innovation, and that therefore it should dominate job creation as well.

The main evidence comes in the form of the figures on the subsidized private sector’s share of total hiring in America, of hiring in the private sector as conventionally defined (which includes the subsidized numbers), and of hiring in the “real private sector” (the total resulting from subtracting the subsidized private sector from the conventionally defined private sector figures). And since we only have data for the first six months of this year (including those for June, which are still preliminary), the time frames compared here will consist of the first six months of each year since the June, 2009 beginning of the current economic recovery).

During the first six months on Mr. Trump’s watch, net new subsidized private sector job creation accounted for 22.29 percent of total job creation (“non-farm” hiring, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics – BLS – defines it), for 23.41 percent of such hiring in the conventionally defined private sector, and of 30.57 percent of the net new jobs in the “real private sector.”

During the first six months of 2018, these shares all declined – to 18.85 percent, 19.75 percent, and 24.61 percent, respectively. At least as important, they were among the lowest recorded during the current recovery. In particular, they were all lower than they were during the first six months of President Obama’s last year in office – when they reached 28.57 percent, 31.57 percent, and 46.13 percent. That is, from January through June of 2016, the increase in subsidized private sector payrolls was nearly half as large as all net new hiring in the rest of the private sector (the “real private sector”) – which is much larger.

But during the first six months of this year, the subsidized private sector made a tremendous comeback.

These industries’ share of total net new U.S. hiring jumped from 18.85 percent to 30.88 percent. Its share of conventionally defined private sector hiring rose from 19.75 percent to 33.06 percent. And net payroll increases in the subsidized private sector compared with “real private sector” payroll increases more than doubled – from 24.61 percent to 49.38 percent.

Even worse, all three results were the highest registered during the current recovery.

The only (mildly encouraging) news on the job quality front in this respect (accepting my assumption that relatively weak job creation in the “real private sector” is a troubling development): On a standstill basis (representing a snapshot, not measuring rate of change), the combined share of total hiring accounted for by the subsidized private sector and the public sector keeps falling. But that’s clearly because job creation in the public sector proper remains weak.

At the onset of the last recession – at the end of 2007 – these jobs amounted to 29.84 percent of all U.S. jobs tracked by the BLS. When the recovery began, this figure had increased to 32.20 percent. By last June, it has dipped to 30.94 percent. And as of this past June (again, preliminarily), it was down to 30.87 percent. That’s still higher than when the last recession began, so it’s possible to argue that the American labor market still hasn’t fully normalized. If the subsidized private sector’s recent job creation resurgence isn’t interrupted, such normalization will become an ever more distant goal.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Manufactured Bad News About Trump’s Manufacturing Record

Tags

Barack Obama, Financial Times, Great Recession, manufacturing, real value-added, recovery, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

So here I was, planning to spend a nice, quiet, blogging-free day on this Fourth of July, when some casual web surfing revealed that the Financial Times, a newspaper I genuinely respect, runs an article besmirching President Trump’s record on reviving manufacturing. And it did so in an unusually intellectually dishonest way.

The Times‘ news coverage usually plays it straight on Trump-ian issues like trade and manufacturing, however vehemently its editorial page opposes the President’s stances. But in its review today of the current U.S. economic recovery (which this month became the longest in American history), it claimed that “The relative weakness of the current economic expansion is owing to the underperformance of the manufacturing sector.”

Fair enough. But then came this contention:

“Despite Mr Trump’s rhetoric in the 2016 election campaign about sparking a revival in the traditional industrial regions of the US, this expansion has been overwhelmingly based on services, which were responsible for two-thirds of the increase in value added from 2009 to 2018.”

And that swipe was completely inexcusable. Perhaps worse – it’s transparently and incompetently inexcusable. Because Donald J. Trump wasn’t President for most of the current recovery, which began in the middle of 2009.

In fact, when you look at the relative performance of manufacturing under Mr. Trump, and under his predecessor, Barack Obama, it becomes embarrassingly clear that industry through 2018 (the latest data year examined by the Times – and naturally so, since it’s the last full year for which statistics are available) has fared much better in the Trump years, and made a far greater growth contribution. Here are the numbers.

Between 2009 and 2018, in terms of real value-added (the measure of output properly used in the Times article), the U.S. economy grew by $3.3576 trillion. Manufacturing production increased by just over $300 billion. So industry only contributed 8.94 percent of the growth during this period.

But then break down these developments by administration, and…what a difference! Under President Trump, starting in 2017 and running through 2018, the total economy in real value-added terms expanded by $907.2 billion. Manufacturing’s contribution totaled $140.5 billion – or 15.49 percent.

During the 2009 through 2016 Obama period, total real value-added increased by $2.4504 trillion. Manufacturing’s contribution was $159.7 billion – or 6.52 percent. That’s way less than half of its contribution during the Trump years.

Moreover, nearly 61 percent of manufacturing’s growth during the Obama administration took place in a single year – 2009-10. That’s when industry engineered a strong comeback from a near-death experience during the Great Recession. In other words, once the economy regained something like a normal footing, annual manufacturing growth slowed practically to a standstill.

Another way to illustrate manufacturing’s out-performance during the Trump years. In 2016, in standstill terms, manufacturing real value-added represented 11.29 percent of after-inflation gross domestic product. Fueling 15.49 percent of the economy’s overall inflation-adjusted growth over the next two years is what’s known as “punching above your weight.”

In 2008, manufacturing real value-added accounted for 12.94 percent of the total economy in constant dollar terms on a standstill basis. And from then through 2016, it fueled 6.52 percent of total price-adjusted growth. That’s known as “punching below your weight.:

Is American manufacturing today “Great Again?” In my view, it’s clear it’s got a long way to go (and no more so than in reducing its gargantuan, chronic trade deficit, a key measure of global competitiveness). Moreover, so far this year, domestic industry has gone through a tougher slog. In fact, since July, 2017, after-inflation domestic manufacturing production has been down on net – which means that it’s been in recession. (And which also means I should have caught that development when the last Federal Reserve industrial production figures – for May – came out. So apologies for that oversight.)

But even a poor full 2019 for manufacturing could still leave the Trump record considerably better than Obama’s. And for the time period examined by the Times, despite the impression it tried to leave, there’s simply no contest. In fact, you could call the report manufactured news.

And before I forget:  Happy Birthday, America!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence that U.S. Growth is Healthier Under Trump

Tags

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

The current U.S. economic recovery has lasted so long (at more than ten years old, it’s already tied with the 1990s expansion as the longest on record), that anxiety about how long it might last, and when a new recession might begin, is entirely understandable. Yet what most economy watchers keep missing is what RealityChek regulars have understood for years – the quality of America’s growth matters at least as much as the quantity.

As a result, the latest government report shedding light on this growth – the preliminary look at the gross domestic product (GDP) for the first quarter of this year – was important not only for revealing that the economy expanded at a healthy 3.21 percent at an annual rate. It was also important for showing that by several crucial measures, the growth recipe was by far the healthiest since at least the period during which United States enjoyed its last period of robust expansion – back in 2014 and 2015.

The definition of healthy growth used by RealityChek is growth that depends relatively little on increases in personal consumption and housing investment. Those segments of the GDP and their bloat were most responsible for inflating the previous decades’ bubbles that burst so disastrously in 2007 and 2008, nearly blew up the entire global economy, and triggered the worst national economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Fortunately, the GDP data compiled by the Commerce Department make it easy to calculate how their current growth contribution compares with their past record. And, as with the latest trade figures, they show that progress towards improving growth’s health has been dramatic so far during President Trump’s administration.

In particular, during that previous high growth period (under President Obama), the economy’s quarterly expansion ranged from 2.60 percent at an annual rate to 3.81 percent after inflation. But the growth contributions made by personal consumption and housing (which I’ve called a “toxic combination”) generally ranged from 62.86 percent to 79.70 percent (with one outlier quarter – the fourth of 2014 – coming in at nearly 187 percent, meaning that other elements of the GDP worked to shrink the economy).

During the high growth period under President Trump, which began in the first quarter of 2018, inflation-adjusted quarterly GDP has actually risen by a somewhat slower pace: between 2.58 percent annualized and that 3.21 percent rate of the first quarter of this year. But the contributions made by the toxic combination have ranged only from ten percent to 67.27 percent. And the figure for that high-growth first quarter of this year was only 22.19 percent.

Also worth noting are the growth rates during the Obama years when the role of the toxic combination was within that Trump range. They were somewhat lower.

Principally, in the second and third quarters of 2014, the toxic combination’s combined real growth contribution was 65.69 percent and 62.86 percent, respectively. Annualized constant dollar growth during those quarters was 2.60 percent and 3.04 percent. Those are solid results, but not quite as good as those from the second, third, and fourth quarters of 2018. Then, the toxic combination’s growth contribution ranged between 60 percent and 67.27 percent, and growth ranged from 2.87 percent to three percent.

As indicated above, these results can be pretty volatile from quarter to quarter. But smoothing them out by using annual figures tells a story even more favorable to the Trump record. Here are those annual figures starting with 2009-10, the first recovery year.

From left to right, the columns represent the personal consumption contribution to after-inflation growth measured in percentage points (e.g., the very first figures shows 0.99 percentage points of 1.80 percent growth), the housing contribution, the total percent – not percentage points – of growth they fueled, and the growth rate for the year in question.

09-10:          1.20/2.60       -0.08/2.60         1.12/2.60         46.92%         2.56%

10-11:          1.29/1.60        0.00/1.60         1.29/1.60         80.63%         1.55%

11-12:          1.03/2.20        0.31/2.20         1.34/2.20         60.91%         2.25%

12-13:          0.99/1.80        0.34/1.80         1.33/1.80         73.89%         1.84%

13-14:          1.97/2.50        0.12/1.80         2.09/1.80       116.11%         2.45%

14-15:          2.50/2.90        0.33/2.90         2.83/2.90         97.59%        2.88%

15-16:          1.85/1.60        0.23/1.60         2.08/1.60      130.00%         1.57%

16-17:          1.73/2.20        0.13/2.20         1.86/2.20        84.55%         2.22%

17-18           1.80/2.90      -0.01/2.90         1.79/2.90        61.72%          2.86%

From left to right, the columns represent the personal consumption contribution to after-inflation growth measured in percentage points (e.g., the very first figures shows 0.99 percentage points of 1.80 percent growth), the housing contribution, the total percent – not percentage points – of growth they fueled, and the growth rate for the year in question.

As with the quarterly figures, during the Obama years, when the growth contribution of the toxic combination was low, so was growth.  During the two full Trump data years, as growth itself sped up, the toxic combination’s contribution has plummeted to multi-year (at least) lows.

But a big question remains unanswered: When, under the Obama administration, the economy did manage to grow satisfactorily with a relatively small contribution by the toxic combination, this health growth recipe didn’t last. Indeed, by the third quarter of 2015, growth itself began slowing markedly, until it bottomed at 1.30 annualized in the second quarter of 2016. And it never broke two percent again. But the toxic combination’s contributions during that decelerating growth period ranged from 91.05 percent to a stunning 430 percent (in the fourth quarter of 2015).

The Trump years’ much better performance in this respect has lasted only two years. Only if this strengthening proves to have legs will it be legitimate to start considering the economy genuinely Great Again.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Could Main Street Have Done Better Than the Fed?

Tags

Ben Bernanke, bubbles, Federal Reserve, Financial Crisis, Great Recession, Lawrence Summers, Leonard Vincent Gilleo, recovery, secular stagnation, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re seeking major insights into America’s recent economic and financial history, a barber’s obituary probably wouldn’t be the place you’d start looking. But if you checked out the notice placed in the Washington Post yesterday for Leonard Vincent Gilleo, you might rethink your assumptions. Because Mr. Gilleo plied his trade at the Federal Reserve. For decades. And although the bio written (presumably by his family) might have gotten a little tongue-in-cheek, it’s arguable enough that the Fed has helped make such a hash of the nation’s economy, especially for the last two decades, that a tantalizing claim in the obit deserves to be taken seriously.

According to the notice, Gilleo’s “clients included former Fed Chairmen Arthur Burns, Paul Volker [sic], Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, as well as US Ambassadors, Secret Service brass, White House Press Secretaries, and hundreds of PhD economists and State Department personnel.”

And his customers, we’re told, didn’t let him just stick to his scissors: “Standing behind his barber’s chair, Lenny served as the common man sounding board to many economic policy decisions made by the Fed.”

Now comes the kicker: “In fact, had his layman’s advice been taken seriously, Black Monday, the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and the financial crisis of 2008 could have all been avoided.”

At first, this might look nonsensical – or the kind of good-natured fun that’s common when we want to remember the deceased fondly. But think of the economic news since Black Monday – the stock market crash of October 19, 1987. The nation experienced a short and relatively shallow recession around the turn of the decade; a strong but initially jobless recovery that turned into a record expansion fueled largely by a technology-driven stock market bubble; another short, shallow recession; a recovery that turned out to be another, much bigger bubble inflated by record levels of easy money supplied by (Alan Greenspan’s) Fed; a terrifying global financial crisis resulting from that bubble’s inevitable bursting; and the recovery from the ensuing Great Recession that began in mid-2009 – the weakest on record.

It’s true that Fed Chair Ben Bernanke in particular is credited by many with preventing the most recent financial crisis from becoming a catastrophic global depression – and rejecting the advice of politicians and economists who argued that the central bank was preventing a restoration of genuine economic health by providing crutches that were too strong for too long.

But it’s also clear that Bernanke, his successor Janet Yellen, and her successor Jerome Powell have chosen the easy way to end the crisis – simply flooding the economy with as much cheap credit as necessary to keep it afloat – and that they have no viable exit plan. It’s clear as well that Bernanke and his mid-2000s colleagues missed the glaring warning signs that the growth of the 2000s was dangerously unhealthy growth.

Less clear, but most important, the Fed’s response to the last financial crisis continued a practice of fostering acceptable levels of growth and employment by showering the economy with levels of stimulus that have been so excessive as to be unsustainable, and bound to risk damaging collapses.

Economist Lawrence Summers was the first to identify this pattern, which he calls secular stagnation.

I’m not saying that I believe Gilleo had better answers. I am saying that it’s not completely crazy to recognize how dreadfully these most credentialed of our economic experts have performed, and to suspect that less technical, academicky mastery and more real-world experience and common sense (plus some backbone) would have left the economy considerably better off than at present. And P.S.: I can think of worse uses of my time than contacting Gilleo’s family to see if they were serious, and if so, what his advice actually was.