(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.

Advertisements

Making News: New Op-Ed on Why Trump is Still Winning on Trade

Tags

aluminum, China, Making News, manufacturing, metals, steel, tariffs, The Washington Times, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade wars, Trump

I’m pleased to announce the publication of a new freelance article of mine.  This morning, The Washington Times posted my op-ed explaining why the huge increase in the monthly and annual U.S. trade deficits reported on Wednesday masked some surprising trends.  Specifically, the data made clear that President Trump’s trade policies continue progressing toward their two of their biggest goals.  Click here to read.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the Lousy February Jobs Numbers Don’t Vindicate Tariff Alarmism

Tags

aluminum, China, Jobs, Labor Department, manufacturing, metals, metals-using industries, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The stunningly poor February overall and manufacturing jobs figures released by the Labor Department today surely caused rejoicing in the ranks of America’s trade alarmists. Here, finally, was evidence that President Trump’s tariff-centric policies are backfiring on the U.S. economy and especially its manufacturing sector.

Actually, however, the new employment data show that the alarmists will need to wait at least another month for the statistics even remotely to justify their claims and warnings. For however disappointing the 20,000 net monthly increase in total American job creation and the 4,000 improvement in manufacturing payrolls, the internals provide no reason to assign significant – or any – blame to trade.

The first clue of course was the steep sequential drop in non-farm employment (the Labor Department’s U.S. jobs universe) generally speaking recorded in this first survey of February trends. After all, if the trade wars were mainly behind February’s results, why was the monthly drop-off in job creation nearly three times steeper in the overall economy (most of which has little global trade exposure) than in manufacturing (which has lots of it)?

At least as important, although the President began imposing tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum eleven months ago, manufacturing sectors heavily reliant on these metals keep outperforming the rest of manufacturing in employment terms. And similar trends are becoming apparent for the enormous number of industries that use various inputs from China that have been tariff-ed starting in July.

Below are the net hiring increases since April (the first full month of the new metals trade regime) for the American private sector as a whole, for all of manufacturing, and for the main heavy metal-using industries.

                                                   Old thru Jan.         New thru Jan.         Thru Feb.

entire private sector:                +1.36 percent         +1.62 percent      +1.64 percent

overall manufacturing:            +1.39 percent         +1.55 percent      +1.58 percent

durable goods:                         +1.72 percent         +1.97 percent      +2.04 percent

fabricated metals products:     +1.57 percent         +1.80 percent      +1.60 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +2.57 percent         +2.54 percent      +2.82 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:  +1.15 percent         +0.97 percent      +1.11 percent

household appliances:             not available           -2.52 percent        not available

aerospace products & parts:    not available          +5.93 percent        not available

The only metals-using sector that seems to have encountered employment trouble in February was the fabricated metals industry. And even in this segment of manufacturing, hiring since April has been slightly stronger than in manufacturing overall.

Automotive job creation has been weak as well, but actually enjoyed a relatively good February, relatively speaking. And although the appliance employment picture remains very weak, it needs to be remembered that it’s been laboring under an additional set of product-specific tariffs since late January.

Yet the entire durable goods sector continued to punch above its job creation weight in February, including the crucial machinery and (at least through January), aerospace industries. Why haven’t higher metals prices darkened their employment picture.

As for the impact of the China tariffs, that’s harder to judge for four reasons. First, an enormous number of manufacturing industries use Chinese inputs – and to greatly varying extents. Second, these levies only began in July, and then on a relatively small scale. Third, the list of products tariff-ed beginning in July matches up imperfectly at best with the sectoral classification scheme used by the Labor Department to track manufacturing employment. And fourth, most of the affected products are found in relatively narrow categories of manufactures, where the jobs data is one month behind.

So the following table shows the post-July employment performance of some major manufacturing sectors that use the Chinese parts, components, and materials tariff-ed that month. But it should be viewed with caution. Nonetheless, they show a heavy burden of proof on the tariff alarmists to identify any damage resulting from the China levies – especially since most of the July-January gains have been so strong.

                                                Old July-Jan.       New July-Jan.          July-Feb.

overall manufacturing           +0.91 percent      +0.98 percent        +1.00 percent

aircraft engines/engine parts: not available       +0.70 percent         not available

industrial heating equipment: not available      +3.02 percent         not available

oil/gas drilling parts:              not available      +3.93 percent         not available

farm machinery/equipment:   not available     +2.67 percent         not available

ball bearings:                         not available     +2.32 percent          not available

“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day” is a popular expression explaining why individual accurate statements or correct predictions shouldn’t automatically signal an information source’s broader credibility. The February jobs figures indicate once again that the trade alarmists haven’t even met this rock-bottom bar.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Evidence that Tariffs Front-Running has Stalled Trump Trade Progress

Tags

aluminum, China, Commerce Department, imports, manufacturing, manufacturing output, manufacturing trade deficit, steel, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, value added, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Yesterday’s post on the morning’s slew of manufacturing data released by the federal government could have included one more report: the Commerce Department’s latest sounding on gross domestic product by industry. And although this read on how different major sectors of the economy have been growing (or not) isn’t a market mover, it’s useful for analyzing the trade policy debate – for it enables calculations on how changes in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit (a major concern of President Trump’s) compare with changes in manufacturing output.

Because this perspective provides the kind of context lacking when trade deficit increases or decreases are examined in isolation, it represents a much better way to judge whether the president’s trade policies are succeeding or failing according to one of his own main yardsticks.

And the verdict stemming from this new Commerce report? Progress that had been taking place during Mr. Trump’s tenure in boosting domestic manufacturers’ trade-related fortunes has come to a halt – probably because of what’s been called tariff front-running. That is, the President’s actual trade curbs and, doubtless much more important, his threats of additional curbs, have led overseas producers and their U.S. customers to boost greatly shipments to the American market in order to avoid paying as many of the levies as possible.

Consequently, as of the third quarter of last year (the latest data made available by Commerce), the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit resumed its long-term pattern of growing faster than domestic manufacturing production.

Specifically, between the third quarter of 2017 and the third quarter of 2018, U.S.-based industry increased its output by 7.23 percent according to a measure of growth called value-added (before inflation). During the same period, however, the manufacturing trade deficit jumped by 12.45 percent.

As made clear by my previous post on the subject, these results both contrast with the second quarter findings – when manufacturing production grew by 8.02 percent while the trade deficit widened by just 7.23 percent – and reversed a trend that began pretty much when the Trump administration did.

Just as clear – the first major Trump tariffs (on steel and aluminum imports) were slapped on in late March. So their arrival, along with China levies that began in early July and the much more sweeping duties imposed in late September and strongly hinted at in June, surely super-charged America’s import system.

Even with this step backward, it’s still evident that, so far during the the Trump years, domestic manufacturing is much less dependent on imports than before.  During the last year of former President Obama’s administration, for example, American manufacturing imports rose by 7.31 percent, while output expanded by only 4.53 percent – a pattern in place for most of the last twenty years.

But the real test of the Trump tariffs – at least concerning the manufacturing trade deficit – will come if and when U.S. trade flows settle into a new, post-tariff, normal, or one that follows the conclusion of the new, improved trade deals the President has promised. In that vein, the next chance to check these data will be April 19, when Commerce is scheduled to publish its fourth quarter and full-year, 2018 figures. Stay tuned!

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                  Aug.-Dec.            Aug.-Jan.

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

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

ball bearings:                                                         +1.01 percent     +1.24 percent

electric generators:                                                +1.61 percent     +1.66 percent

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

core commodity final demand                              +0.64 percent      +1.13 percent

industrial heating equipment:                               +1.79 percent      +2.41 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:                              0 percent              0 percent

farm machinery and equipment:                           +2.26 percent      +2.55 percent

paper-making machinery:                                     +0.31 percent      +0.52 percent

electricity transformers:                                        +0.12 percent      +0.68 percent

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

& vegs:

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

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

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

& vegs:

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

& vegs:

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

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

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

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

at home:

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

beverages away:

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

-carbonated non-

alcoholic rinks:

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

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

alcoholic drinks:

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

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

parts:

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

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

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

cookware & tableware:

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

outdoor equipment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

                                              old thru Nov       new thru Nov       thru Dec

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

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

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

machinery:                           +5.11 percent      +5.55 percent    +4.93 percent

automotive:                          -1.46 percent       -1.32 percent    +3.36 percent

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

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

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

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

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

overall manufacturing:                            +1.72 percent

aircraft engines and engine parts:           +5.42 percent

industrial heating equipment:                 +0.14 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:         +2.21 percent

farm machinery and equipment:             +3.29 percent

ball bearings:                                           -0.17 percent

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

& vegs:

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

& vegs

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

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

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

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

consumed at home

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

consumed away

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

alcoholic drinks

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

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

carbonated non-

alcoholic drinks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

                                                    old thru Oct      new thru Oct         thru Nov

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

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

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

machinery:                               +5.09 percent      +4.54 percent    +5.11 percent

automotive:                               -2.42 percent      -1.74 percent     -1.46 percent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                      March-July                       July-Nov

overall manufacturing:               +0.87 percent                 +0.52 percent

durable goods:                            +0.13 percent                 +2.01 percent

non-durable goods:                     +1.65 percent                  -0.99 percent

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

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