(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the New (April) U.S. Trade Report a False Dawn?

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, Biden, Census Bureau, China, Donald Trump, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, services trade, South Korea, stimulus, supply chains, Switzerland, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although today’s new official figures showed a major dropoff in the U.S. trade deficit between March and April, and the results came from a normally encouraging combination of more exports and fewer imports, the Census data also show that big caveats and questions are hanging over these results and how enduring they might be.

First and foremost, the improvement in the combined goods and services deficits, and all virtually all the trade balances comprising it, could be resulting from a dramatic slowdown in U.S. economic growth. Second, the latest decline in the chronic and huge U.S. goods trade gap with China surely stems from Beijing’s recent over-the-top (but surely temporary) Zero Covid policies, which have further snagged already tangled up supply chains. And third, large revisions in some of the numbers (especially for services trade) inevitably cast some doubt as to their reliability lately.

In fact, these features of the report – along with the still-near historic levels of many of these trade deficits and other usually typical gap-widening developments like a strong U.S. dollar and still-astronomical levels of economic stimulus from Washington – are telling me that my prediction last month of higher deficits to come will age pretty well.

Not that the narrowing of the trade gap in April was bupkis. The combined goods and services deficit fell 19.11 percent from March’s all-time high of $107.65 billion (which itself was revised down a hefty 1.96 percent) to $87.08 billion. This level was the lowest since December’s $78.87 billion and the nosedive the biggest since December, 2012’s 19.85 percent.

And as just mentioned, the improvement came from the right combination of reasons. Total exports hit their third straight monthly record, rising 3.49 percent from an upwardly revised (by 0.99 percent) $244.11 billion to $252.62 billion

Overall imports, meanwhile, tumbled 3.43 percent from their record $351.79 billion to $339.70 billion. The total was the second biggest ever, but the decrease was the greatest since the 13.16 shrinkage during pandemic-y and recession-y April, 2020.

The trade shortfall in goods was down 15.04 percent from a downwardly revised (by 1.04 percent) $126.81 billion in March to $107.74 percent in April. This level, too, was the lowest since December’s $100.52 billion, and the 15.04 percent sequential tumble the biggest since April, 2015’s 15.09 percent.

Goods exports rose sequentially by 3.57 percent in April, from 170.04 billion to a third consecutive record of $176.11 billion. And U.S. purchases of foreign goods sank by 4.38 percent on month in April, from a downwardly revised (by 0.65 percent) record $296.85 billion to $283.84 billion (as with total imports, the second highest result of all time). The decrease was the biggest since the 12.79 percent drop in that pandemic-y April, 2020.

But even the above sizable revisions paled before those made for services trade. The March surplus was upgraded fully 4.48 percent, from $18.34 billion to $19.16 billion, and the April figure grew by another 7.83 percent to $20.66 billion – the highest level since December’s $21.66 billion.

Services exports (apparently) deserve much of the credit. They reached an all-time high of $76.52 billion. This total bested May, 2019’s previous record of $75.41 billion by only 1.46 percent, but the milestone is significant given the outsized hit suffered by the service sector worldwide during the pandemic period.

April services exports, moreover, rose 3.30 percent from March’s $74.07 billion – a total that itself was revised up by 4.23 percent.

Services imports set their third consecutive monthly record in April, rising 1.73 percent, to $55.86 billion, from March’s upwardly revised (by 4.19 percent) $54.19 billion.

A big April fall-off also came in the non-oil goods trade deficit – known to RealityChek regulars as the Made in Washington trade deficit, because by stripping out figures for oil (which trade diplomacy usually ignores) and services (where liberalization efforts have barely begun), it stems from those U.S. trade flows that have been heavily influenced by trade policy decisions.

This shortfall decreased by 14.72 percent in April, to $108.68 billion, from March’s downwardly revised record $127.42 billion. The drop was the biggest since March, 2013’s 16.74 percent.

The enormous and persistent manufacturing trade deficit retreated in April from record levels, too. But even though the month’s $124.41 billion shortfall was 12.71 percent lower than March’s all-time high $142.22 billion, and even though the monthly decline of 12.71 percent was the biggest since pandemic-y February, 2020’s 23.09 percent, this deficit was still the second biggest ever.

April’s manufactures exports of $109.36 billion were 4.03 percent lower than March’s record $113.96 billion, but were still the second best total on record. Ditto for the month’s manufactures imports, which tumbled 8.85 percent from their March record of $256.18 billion to $233.50 billion.

Another April fall-off from a record monthly deficit came in advanced technology products (ATP). After ballooning by 73.65 percent sequentially in March, to $23.31 billion, the recently volatile gap narrowed in April by 21.50 percent, to $18.30 billion.

Both the better manufactuing and ATP trade figures surely stemmed at least in part from the Zero Covid policies that interfered with so much industrial production from China. The U.S. goods deficit with the People’s Repubic, however, narrowed by just 10.02 percent on month in April, from $34 billion to $30.57 billion. Even so, the level was the lowest since last July’s $28.56 billion.

U.S. goods exports to China were down on month in April by 16.25 percent (their biggest drop since February, 2021’s 278.85 percent), from $13.38 billion to $11.20b. This total is the lowest since last September’s $11.03 billion.

The much greater amount of U.S. goods imports from China plummeted 11.82 percent n month in April, from $47.37 billion to $41.77 billion – the lowest level since last July’s $40.32 billion.

Also notable – breaking a pattern going back several years — the 10.02 percent April monthly drop in the U.S. goods deficit with China was smaller than the month’s sequential decline in the non-oil goods deficit (14.72 percent). And on a yar-to-date basis, the China deficit is up only slightly less (27.59 percent) than the non-oil deficit (28.95 percent). So the next few months’ worth of data may shed some light on whether the Trump (now Biden) tariffs on China are losing their effectiveness, or whether the last few months’ numbers are anomalies.

Other significant April results for individual U.S. trade partners: The goods deficit with South Korea set a new record of $4.09 billion – 23.79 percent higher than March’s total of $3.30 billion and 21.70 percent greater than the old record of $3.36 billion set last September.

And the goods deficit with Switzerland cratered in April by 67.63 percent, to $2.89 billion, from March’s $8.93 billion level. The percentage shrinkage of this bilateral trade gap was the biggest since September, 2018, when a $1.22 billion U.S. deficit turned into a $149 million surplus.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New Official U.S. Manufacturing Data Look Anything but Recession-y

Tags

aerospace, aircaft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, electrical equipment, electronic components, Federal Reserve, furniture, industrial production, inflation, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medicines, metals, non-metallic mineral products, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, transportation equipment, Ukraine, wood products, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s Federal Reserve industrial production report (for April) is making clearer than ever that if the U.S. economy is headed for a recession or a major growth slowdown, domestic manufacturing won’t deserve significant blame unless it takes a major nosedive before too long.

The report showed that despite the Ukraine war, despite ongoing supply chain snags, despite torrid inflation, and despite Federal Reserve plans to cool these price rises with interest rate hikes that will almost have to moderate growth if they work, U.S.-based industry increased output for the seventh straight month – and by a thoroughly respectable 0.75 percent.

Moreover, modest and mixed revisions left those strong recently results entirely intact. As a result, since February, 2020 – the last full data month before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force began upending the economy – domestic manufacturing has grown in real terms by 5.07 percent, up from the 4.42 percent calculable from last month’s release. In addition, in constant dollars, these sectors’ production is now within 2.29 percent of its all-time high – reached in December, 2007, just as the Great Recession triggered by the global financial crisis was beginning.

The list of April’s main manufacturing growth leaders was headed by the volatile automotive sector, but many of the biggest industry sub-sectors tracked by the Fed enjoyed healthy expansions last month.

Especially encouraging about the combined performance of vehicle and parts makers – which continue to be plagued by the global semiconductor shortage – was the follow-through. Their vigorous April sequential 3.92 percent after-inflation output increase followed a March gain upgraded from 7.80 percent to 8.28 percent, and that represented the biggest monthly advance since last October’s 10.64 percent. And that result followed a September tumble of 6.32 percent. Moreover, February’s big monthly dropoff was upgraded again, to a 3.86 percent loss.

All told, price-adjusted automotive output in April moved above its February, 2020 immediate pre-pandemic level (by 0.77 percent) for the first time since July, 2020.

A banner April also was registered by aerospace and miscellaneous transportation equipment companies. They boosted inflation-adjusted production by a sequential 2.15 percent. But March’s initially reported 1.90 percent after-inflation increase – previously the best monthly performance since last July’s 4.21 percent jump – is now judged to be a negligible 0.08 percent rise, February’s downgraded 1.64 percent real production improvement, however, was revised up to 1.82 percent, leaving these businesses 17.28 percent larger than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 16.43 percent growth calculable from last month’s Fed report.

Inflation-adjusted primary metals production rose on month by 1.36 percent in April, and March’s initially reported 1.69 percent sequential drop – the biggest since January’s 2.53 percent plunge – is now judged to be just 0.75 percent. And February’s already upwardly revised constant dollar production surge was upgraded again – to a 2.94 percent figure that’s still the best since last April’s 3.48 percent. After-inflation production of these metals is now 4.01 percent greater than in February, 2020, compared with the 1.16 percent calculable last month;

Wood products output expanded nicely in real terms, too – by 1.13 percent sequentially in April. This improvement pushed this industry’s price-adjusted production to 7.85 percent above its immediate pre-pandemic level.

And consistent with manufacturing’s overall output winning streak, machinery production continued in April continued to excel as well – although more unevenly. Real output in this bellwether sector – whose products are used so widely throughout the economy – climbed by 0.85 percent sequentially in April. And although March’s results were revised way down from 0.78 percent growth to 0.36 percent contraction, February’s previously reported and downgraded 0.54 percent improvement was revised way up to 1.17 percent. As a result, the sector is now 8.31 percent bigger after inflation than in immediately pre-pandemic February, 2020.

The biggest April manufacturing growth losers were:

>plastics and rubber products, where a March real output increase of a sharply downgraded 0.58 percent was followed by a 0.79 percent decrease that was the biggest monthly decline since December’s 0.94 percent. February, moreover, saw another discouraging revision – from a 3.14 percent constant dollar monthly advance to 2.80 percent. At least that result still was the best since August, 2020’s 3.85 percent. Consequently, this sector is now just 1.05 percent bigger in real output terms than in February, 2020 – as opposed to the 3.56 percent calculable last month;

>non-metallic mineral products, where inflation-adjusted production dipped for a second straight month – this time by 0.67 percent. March’s drop, however, is now pegged at only 0.76 percent instead of 1.15 percent, and February’s upgraded real output burst of 3.94 percent is now estimated at 4.42 percent, its best such performance since the 9.19 percent increase in May, 2020, early during the rapid recovery from the steep recession caused by the CCP Virus’ first wave and associated economic and behavioral curbs. But whereas as of last month’s industrial production report, these sectors had grown by an inflation-adjusted 3.28 percent since February, 2020, this figure is now down to 2.58 percent.

>electrical equipment, appliances, and components, where real output fell for a second straight month. The April sequential decrease was 0.60 percent and followed a 0.04 percent March drop that was first reported as a 1.03 percent increase. Fortunately, February’s results were upgraded a second time, to a 2.03 percent advance that’s still the sector’s best since last July’s 3.24 percent. But the net result is a group of industries that’s now only 3.55 percent larger in real output terms than in February, 2020, as opposed to the 5.55 percent calculable last month; and

>furniture and related products, whose price-adjusted output decreased in April for the second straight month. The 0.60 percent monthly retreat means that these sectors have shrunk by an inflation-adjusted 1.56 percent since February, 2020.

Growth, however, generally tailed off in April in industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic.

The aircraft and aircraft parts sectors were the out-performers. Their real output rose on month in April by a strong 1.67 percent. But even here, March’s initially reported even better 2.31 percent increase is now pegged at just 0.47 percent. The February estimate, however, bounced back from a downgraded 1.13 percent gain to an improvement of 1.34 percent, helping the sector to register 16.37 percent real production growth since February, 2020, compared with the 15.86 percent calculable last month.

Inflation-adjusted output in the big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry dropped sequentially in April for the third time in the last four months. More encouragingly, that 0.20 percent decline followed March growth that was revised up from 1.17 percent to 1.23 percent. But February’s 1.15 percent decrease is now estimated at a still dreary 0.96 percent retreat, and January’s previously upgraded 0.45 percent increase is now thought to be a contraction of 0.26 percent. So where as of last month, real pharmaceuticals and medicines output was reported as 14.75 percent higher than in immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020, that growth is now down to 14.64 percent.

As for medical equipment and supplies, these sectors suffered their first monthly production decline (0.06 percent) since December’s 0.68 percent. In addition, March’s previously reported 1.81 percent rise was revised down to 1.28 percent, February’s previously upgraded 1.73 percent increase was cut back to 1.46 percent, and January’s upwardly revised gains were trimmed from 3.28 percent to 2.94 percent. As a result, these industries’ post-February, 2020 real production increase is now estimated at 8.92 percent, down from the 10.28 percent improvement calculable last month.

Even semiconductor output took a hit in April. The shortage-plagued sector saw real production sink by 1.85 percent sequentially last month – its worst such performance since last June’s 1.62 percent. Revisions were mixed, with March’s initially reported 1.99 percent constant dollar advance reduced to 1.83 percent; February’s big jump upgraded again to 2.91 percent; and January’s fractional 0.05 percent increase revised up to 0.06 percent. These results still left price-adjusted semiconductor production up 23.38 percent since February, 2020, but that figure is down from the 25.99 percent calculable last month.

An entirely new hurdle to domestic manufacturing output could appear in late June. That’s when the Fed’s data gatherers tell us they’ll issue their next annual benchmark revision – which could reveal that U.S.-based industry’s performance has been weaker in recent years than they’d thought. At the same time, it could turn out to be stronger.  Given how domestic manufacturing has overcome so many other headwinds recently, that would be an upside surprise that I at least wouldn’t find completely surprising.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Latest Sign That Inflation is Here to Stay

Tags

baseline effect, consumer price index, cost of living, CPI, Federal Reserve, inflation, monetary policy, PPI, Producer Price Index, recession, supply chains, wholesale inflation, wholesale prices, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you follow the news about the U.S. economy, you know by now that the federal government’s Producer Price Index (PPI – its measure of wholesale price inflation), rose at a slightly slower annual rate in April (11.03 percent) than in March (11.18 percent).

Ditto for the core PPI, which omits not only food and energy but trade services – since supposedly they’re volatile for reasons having nothing to do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to out-of-the-ordinary price changes (decreases as well as increases).

Both PPIs measure how much businesses charge each other for the goods and services they turn into final products and sell to households and individuals. That’s why they’re naturally seen as precursors of future consumer inflation rates (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI).

After all, as long as the economy’s overall demand levels (reflecting overall growth levels) remain healthy, these businesses mostly will be able to pass these cost increases on to customers and actually will. Higher consumer inflation follows. So anything like the opposite is happening, and if producer prices are easing at all (even from historic highs), that’s got to be encouraging news on the consumer and overall inflation fronts.

But did the April yearly rate of increase really slow down? Maybe not. That’s because it’s a preliminary reading and, as shown by the left-hand column in the table below, since last September, every revision of that first estimate went up.

Jan 2021: 1.60 percent now 1.59                                1.97 percent

Feb 2021: 2.96 percent now 2.95                               1.11 percent

March 2021: 4.15 percent now 4.06                           0.34 percent

April 2021: 6.51 percent now 6.43                  -1.52 percent now -1.44

May 2021: 6.99 percent now 6.91                   -1.10 percent now -1.01

June 2021: 7.56 percent now 7.49                   -0.68 percent now -0.59

July 2021: 7.96 percent now 7.83                    -0.25 percent now -0.17

Aug 2021: 8.65 percent now 8.58                    -0.25 percent now -0.17

Sept 2021: 8.78 percent now 8.82                             0.34 percent

Oct 2021:  8.87 percent now 8.90                             0.59 percent

Nov 2021: 9.88 percent now 9.94                     0.85 percent now 0.76

Dec 2021: 9.99 percent now 10.58                   0.84 percent now 0.76

Jan 2022: 10.08 percent now 10.17                  1.60 percent now 1.59

Feb 2022: 10.27 percent now 10.51                 2.96 percent now 2.95

March 2022: 11.18 percent now 11.54             4.15 percent now 4.06

April, 2022: 11.03 percent                                       6.43 percent

Sure, the April revision could be a downgrade – like those between January and August, 2021. But the odds of an upgrade look pretty good.

Moreover, the right-hand column in the table shows that the baseline effect, which was cause for some optimism that inflation might peak before too long, is more over than ever.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the unusually high and robustly rising annual CPI and PPI figures for last year stemmed largely from the change they represented from unusually low inflation rates the year before – which were driven down by the arrival of the CCP Virus and the sharp recession it induced by prompting on-and-off lockdowns of huge chunks of the economy, and major behavioral caution by businesses and individuals alike.

What that right-hand column shows is that these effects – even with the slightly better revisions displayed above – were profound enough to result in actual PPI annual decreases from April, 2019-2020 through August, 2019-2020. (The right-hand column also brings the story up to 2020-2021 for January through April – the baseline comparison year for the first four data months of 2021-2022.)

That is to say, the table reveals that the economy’s recovery in 2021 from virus-ridden and downturn-y 2020 amounted to a great catching up process that largely explains the bloated PPI figures. (The other major factor was supply chain disruption resulting from the stop-and-start nature of some of the virus waves and lockdowns, and therefore of the recovery itself.)

But the above table also shows that the baseline effect began fading significantly this past February. That month, the annual PPI rise of 10.27 percent came off a February, 2020-2021 increase of 2.95 percent. The similar January annual increase of 10.08 percent, by contrast, came off a 2020-2021 rise of a much lower 1.59 percent.

And just look at April! That 11.03 percent annual PPI jump has followed a 6.43 percent increase between the previous Aprils.

Moreover, the same kind of trend (at lower absolute levels) is evident from the core PPI data, as shown below. Again, the left-hand column displays the annual increases by month starting in January, 2021. The right-hand column shows the annual changes by month for the year before – the baseline. The only possible significant difference is that I haven’t tracked the revision record for this core PPI series, so I don’t know if the latest April result is likely to be upgraded or downgraded, or unrevised.

Jan 2021: 1.79 percent                                                    1.64 percent

Feb 2021: 2.33 percent                                                   1.36 percent

March 2021: 3.15 percent                                               1.00 percent

April 2021: 4.81 percent                                                -0.09 percent

May 2021: 5.25 percent                                                 -0.18 percent

June 2021: 5.60 percent                                                  0.09 percent

July 2021: 6.01 percent                                                   0.27 percent

Aug 2021: 6.19 percent                                                   0.36 percent

Sept 2021: 6.14 percent                                                  0.72 percent

Oct 2021: 6.26 percent                                                    0.90 percent

Nov 2021: 7.04 percent                                                   0.99 percent

Dec 2021: 7.18 percent                                                    1.17 percent

Jan 2022: 6.91 percent                                                     1.79 percent

Feb 2022: 6.76 percent                                                    2.33 percent

March 2022: 7.10 percent                                               3.15 percent

April, 2022: 6.92 percent                                                4.81 percent

The big takeaway here: Even more than yesterday’s April Consumer Price Index report, today’s release on the Producer Price Index is saying that alarmingly high inflation is here to stay for Americans for the forseeable future. It’s possible that the Federal Reserve, the U.S. government agency mainly responsible for handling inflation, can tighten monetary policy (to reduce that aforementioned consumer demand and in turn growth) skillfully enough to engineer a “soft landing” for the economy – i.e., bring price increases back to much less damaging levels while avoiding a recession. But keep in mind that the next time the central bank achieves this goal starting from inflation rates this hot will be the first.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Job Creation Gains More Momentum

Tags

aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, automotive, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Employment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, Jobs, machinery, manufacturing, miscellaneous durable goods, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, plastics and rubber products, PPE, recession, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, supply chains, transportation equipment, Ukraine-Russia war, vaccines, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official April U.S. jobs report featured such a strong showing by U.S.-based manufacturers that, by one measure, they reclaimed title of America’s best job-creating sector during the CCP Virus era (and its aftermath?).

Domestic industry boosted its payrolls sequentially last month by 55,000 workers, its best such performance since July’s 62,000 gain. In addition, revisions were excellent. March’s initially reported 38,000 increase is now pegged at 43,000, and February’s upgraded 38,000 rise is now judged to have been 50,000.

As a result, manufacturing’s share of U.S. non-farm employment (the federal government’s definition of the American jobs universe), has improved from 8.38 percent in February, 2020 – the last full data month before the virus began roiling the national economy – to 8.41 percent as of last month.

And during this period, manufacturing’s share of America’s private sector jobs is up from 9.83 percent to 9.86 percent.

Domestic industry has recovered a slightly smaller share of the jobs it lost during the sharp pandemic-induced downturn of spring, 2020 (95.89 percent) than the private sector (97.62 percent). But it also shed fewer jobs proportionately than the rest of the private sector during that terrible March and April. (For the record, because of a drag created by public sector hiring, the share of all non-farm jobs regaine d now stands at 94.59 percent.

In all, U.S.-based manufacturing employment is now down a mere 0.44 percent from immediate pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

April’s manufacturing jobs winners were broad-based, but the biggest among the major sectors tracked by the Labor Department were:

>transportation equipment, whose 13,700 employment improvement was its best such performance since last October’s 28,200. (Last month I erroneously reported that the sector’s best recent monthly performance was last August’s 19,000.) Unfortunately, March’s initially reported employment advance of 10,800 was revised down to 8,800, and February’s previously estimated 19,800 jobs plunge (the worst monthly performance since April, 2021’s automotive shutdown-produced nosedive of 48,100) is now judged to be 19,900. Bottom line: This sector’s employment levels are still 3.38 percent below those of that last full pre-pandemic data month of February, 2020;

>machinery, where 7,400 jobs were added on month – an especially encouraging result since its products are so widely used throughout the rest of manufacturing and the entire economy. Even better, March’s initially reported 1,700 employment increase was revised all the way up to 6,700, and February’s perfomance – which had been revised down from an 8,300 rise to one of 6,600, recovered a bit to 6,700. As a result, machinery employment is off just 1.55 percent from its February, 2020 levels;

>automotive, which boosted headcounts by 6,400 – its best monthly gain since last October’s 34,200 plant reopening-driven burst. But March’s initially reported 6,400 jobs rise was downgraded to 3,600, and even though February’s major job losses were revised for the better again, they’re still pegged at 14,000 – the worst since the 49,100 employees shed during the shutdowns last April. These gyrations have left the combined vehicles and parts workforce 0.78 pecent smaller than in February, 2020;

>plastics and rubber products, which upped employmment by 5,700 sequentially in April, the best such performance since last August’s 7,800. Job-wise, these sectors are now 3.38 percent larger than in February, 2020.

The only significant jobs losers in April were furniture and related products and miscellaneous durable goods. The former lost 1,100 positions in April, but employment has still inched up by 0.57 percent since pre-pandemic-y February, 2020. The latter – which includes much of the protective gear needed to fight and contain the CCP Virus – reduced employment by 1,400 sequentially last month. But this decrease was the first since last August’s 600 loss, and followed a strong 3,100 jobs gain in March. This catch-all category’s employment is now 1.54 percent higher than in February, 2020.

As always, the most detailed employment data for pandemic-related industries are one month behind those in the broader categories, and as with the rest of domestic industry for March, their employment picture showed improvement overall.

The semiconductor and related devices sector is still struggling to meet demand, but hiring continued its slow-but-steady pandemic-era increase in March with job gains of 700. February’s initially reported 100 employment loss now stands at a 100 employment gain, and January’s numbers stayed at plus-300 – the best monthly performance since last October’s 1,000. This sector now employs 1.34 percent more workers than in February, 2020 – impressive since during the sharp spring, 2020 economic downturn, it kept adding jobs.

The latest employment results were mixed for surgical appliances and supplies makers – a category within the aforementioned miscellaneous durable goods sector, and one in which personal protective equipment and similar medical goods abound. In March, the industry added 1,100 workers, but revisions completely wiped out February’s initially reported 800 jobs gain. The January hiring increase stayed at a downwardly revised 1,300. Even so, since just beforet the pandemic’s arrival in force in the United States, these companies have increased payrolls by 4.07 percent.

The very big pharmaceuticals and medicines industry continued to be a moderate employment winner in March. It hired an additional 900 workers on month, and though its February improvement was downgraded (from 1,300 to 1,000), the number was solid. Moreover, January’s hugely upgraded 1,100 employment rise stayed intact. Since February, 2020, this sector’s headcount is up fully 9.23 percent.

March jobs gains were more subdued in the medicines subsector containing vaccines, but they still totaled 400. February’s initially reported employment increase of 800 is estimated at just 500 now, and January’s identical increase stayed the same. But over time, this industry’s jobs growth has been impressive – 23.15 percent since the last pre-pandemic data month of February, 2020.

Good job gains continued in March in the aviation cluster as well. Aircraft manufacturers (including still-troubled industry giant Boeing) rose by 1,100 sequentially – the best monthly gain since last June’s 4,400. February’s increase was upgraded from 500 to 600, but January’s sequential job loss stayed unrevised at 800. This net increase brought aircraft employment to within 11.08 percent of its February, 2020 level.

The aircraft engines and engine parts industry followed February’s unrevised 900 hiring increase by adding 500 more workers in March. January’s results, however, stayed at a slightly downgraded 900 loss. And these companies’ still employ 12.65 percent fewer workers than in February, 2020.

The deep jobs depression in the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector remained deep in March, but a little less so. Jobs gains for the month totaled 700, February’s initially reported 200 increase was unrevised, and January’s way upwardly revised job rise was downgraded only from 1,500 to 1,400. But since just before the pandemic, the non-engine aircraft parts and equipment sector has still shrunk by 15.74 percent.

Having recently navigated its way skillfully through a once-in-a-century pandemic, a virtual shutdown of the entire U.S. economy, continuing supply chain disruption, multi-decade high inflation, a major war in Europe (so far), former export champ Boeing’s woes, and sluggish-at-best growth in much of the foreign markets it relies on heavily, it’s tempting to say that U.S-based manufacturing will have finally met its match if the Federal Reserve’s inflation-fighting campaign dramatically slows growth domestically — or worse.  But since the pandemic began, the next time the manufacturing pessimists are right will be the first.       

 

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of Last Night’s National Radio Interview on Manufacturing & China Defeatism

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Following Up, Gordon G. Chang, John Batchelor, manufacturing, reshoring, supply chains, tariffs, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview last night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World” with John Batchelor is now on-line.

Click here for a timely discussion – including co-host Gordon G. Chang – of whether the U.S. manufacturing revival pessimists are right, and bringing factories back from China really is a fool’s quest.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight to Talk Bringing Back Manufacturing…& More!

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Financial Times, Gordon G. Chang, inflation, John Batchelor, Making News, manufacturing, reshoring, supply chains, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit

I’m pleased to announce that tonight I’m scheduled to be back on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” The segment is slated to begin at 11:15 PM EST, but every night’s entire program is well worth your while, and starts each week night at 9 PM.

Tonight, John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and I will focus on recent remarks by a Wall Street big-wig claiming that manufacturing supply chains can’t be brought back to the United States from China for many years – suggesting of course that the attempt shouldn’t even be made.

You can listen live on-line here and, as usual, if you can’t tune in, the podcast will be posted as soon as it’s on-line.

In addition, RealityChek‘s work on the real deal with trade, tariffs, and inflation was cited in this Financial Times column on Sunday.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Talking China Tariff Cuts and Inflation

Tags

Biden administration, CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, consumer goods, Donald Trump, Gordon G. Chang, inflation, John Batchelor, Making News, near-shoring, reshoring, supply chains, tariffs, trade war

I’m pleased to announce that tonight I’m scheduled to be back on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor.” Air time for the segment is yet to be determined, but the show is on nightly between 9 PM and 1 AM EST. You can listen live on-line here (among many other stations) as John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and I discuss my recent report about the Biden administration mulling cutting the Trump tariffs on lots of imports from China – for completely bogus reasons.

As usual, a podcast of the interview will be posted as soon as one’s available.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The IMF Strikes Out on Supply Chain Security

Tags

antitrust, Biden administration, Buy American, CCP Virus, competition, coronavirus, COVID 19, health security, IMF, International Monetary Fund, manufacturing, national security, reshoring, supply chains, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

An impressive body of evidence (see, e.g., here and here) is now shedding light on the dangers of letting specialists in a single field (in this case, public health) dictate policy toward a multi-dimensional challenge like the CCP Virus. For all their supposed expertise on virology and epidemiology, the leaders of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health simply weren’t qualified to take into account the affects of indiscriminate lockdowns and mandates on measures of well-being like economic growth, employment and living standards; educational attainment; and even other dimensions of physical and psychological well-being like opioid use and childhood development.

The best outcomes were always likeliest to come from elected leaders able to see the bigger picture (at least in theory) by drawing on the views of experts from all relevant disciplines.

Just recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has unwittingly exposed the dangers of letting economists dictate national responses to the varied perils underscored first by the pandemic and now by the Ukraine war of over-reliance on problematic suppliers of critical goods in a wide range of industries.

According to a chapter in its new forthcoming World Economic Outlook, the kinds of “Policy proposals to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers, especially in strategic sectors [that] have gained prominence…including in major markets such as Europe and the United States…may be premature, if not misguided.” Instead, “greater diversification in international sourcing of inputs and greater substitutability in input sourcing” would be a much better approach to strengthening supply chain resilience and ensuring adequate access to these products.

But at least when it comes to the United States, the IMF doesn’t even describe the situation accurately. It’s true that during his presidential campaign, Joe Biden set a goal of boosting U.S. manufacturing output, that a principal aim has been improving supply chain security, and that one element of his plan has been to replace imports with U.S.-made goods via better enforcement of the federal government’s Buy America programs. Moreover, the President has been following through.

But it’s also true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that the Biden approach also includes exactly the kind of supplier diversification urged by the IMF – specifically to countries like treaty allies that supposedly deserve to be “trusted.”

And even though these new supply chain policies are mainly intended to achieve crucial goals like enhanced national security and health security, the Fund’s study defines these aims out of existence. As observed in the Wall Street Journal‘s coverage, “The analysis didn’t address that some countries are seeking to bolster domestic supply chains as a national-security issue, and not strictly as the most economically efficient option.”

In fact, like the Biden administration, the IMF study also overlooks a major lesson on the reliability of diversity that became glaringly obvious during the worst days of pandemic. During that terrible first wave in early 2020, no fewer than 80 countries imposed limits on their exports of healthcare goods. These countries – which clearly prioritized the health of their own citizens over that of foreign populations, much less over global trade rules – included all the major economies of Western and Central Europe (even the United Kingdom), along with South Korea.

Yet this IMF study fails on some major purely economic grounds, too. Most important, it ignores the United States’ vast and distinctive degree of self-sufficiency in a wide range of goods and services, and its impressive potential to achieve more. As I wrote in this 2019 article, there’s no reason to doubt that the huge and already highly diverse U.S. economy can handle the great majority of its own economic needs while maintaining entirely satisfactory degrees of the benefits of competition (e.g., low prices, high quality, continuous innovation) by taking anti-trust enforcement much more seriously.

In short, I noted, what’s essential for keeping pressure on businesses to keep getting better isn’t “international competition.” For an economy the scale of the United States, domestic competition should nearly always suffice if government policies help maintain its intensity.

In fact, some confirmation of this claim just appeared in a new study by the World Trade Organization (WTO) on how the Ukraine war could well affect global trade and economic development. Looking further down the road, the WTO examined five possible post-Ukraine scenarios for global trade, with the most extreme being the splitting of the world “into two hypothetical blocs with only low trade barriers remaining within each bloc. This means that trade between blocs would be replaced by trade within blocs in this scenario.”

The WTO’s economists believe that this outcome would reduce global output of goods and services by five percent as compared with a future in which world trade patterns remain basically the same. But the cost to the U.S. economy was much less – just one percent.

The WTO calls all these projections under-estimates because trade within these blocs probably won’t increase, and because for several other reasons, such decoupling would create a much messier and even less efficient structure for global trade.

Yet the United States, for its part, has ample incentive to replace its imports of relatively unsophisticated manufactures from East Asia with purchases from Mexico and Central America – curbing immigration. In fact, the American textile industry has just informed us that this scenario is beginning to play out.

Moreover, there’s no reason to think that even WTO’s relatively optimistic decoupling projections for the United States have taken into account America’s extensive possibilities for replacing imports with domestic goods if competition levels within the country are ratcheted up by breaking up monopolies and oligopolies.

Finally, both the IMF and the WTO completely overlook the enormous purely economic advantages the U.S. economy would reap from decoupling – like better chances of preventing and mitigating the staggering economic costs of future pandemics, and the greater certainty businesses would enjoy from reduced vulnerability from geopolitical turmoil abroad, or from the caprice that even allied countries displayed during the pandemic. Think of decoupling as insurance – which businesses and individuals alike seem to view as a pretty economically sensible investment, even if the IMF and the WTO apparently have never heard of the concept.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: U.S. Manufacturing Growth is Overcoming the Ukraine War, Too

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, electrical components, electrical equipment, Federal Reserve, furniture, inflation, logistics, machinery, manufacturing, medical devices, medical equipment, metals, monetary policy, non-metallic mineral products, pharmaceuticals, printing, semiconductors, supply chains, textiles, transportation, {What's Left of) Our Economy

My day got away from me yesterday, so I couldn’t finish up my report on that morning’s Federal Reserve’s newest U.S. manufacturing production figures (for March) till now. But they’re worth examining in detail because although they’re the first such data to be released since the Ukraine war broke out and began disrupting global supply chains for important goods, they strongly resembled last month’s statistics – which were the final pre-war figures.

And just as interesting: Many of the results for individual industries illustrated strikingly the roller coaster ride on which much of domestic industry remains, with multi-month bests in particular coming right on the heels of multi-month worsts. Moreover, underscoring much of the uncertainty created by Ukraine-related tumult coming on top of (and in China’s case, alongside) CCP Virus-related tumult, some revisions of previous months’ readings were unusually large.

In inflation-adjusted terms, American manufacturing output grew 0.87 percent sequentially in March. The increase was powered largely by a 7.80 percent monthly jump in real output in the exceptionally volatile automotive sector. But even stripping out vehicles and parts production, price-adjusted manufacturing production improved by 0.40 percent in March.

In addition, revisions were mildly positive. February’s initially reported 1.20 percent constant dollar month-on-month production increase – the best such performance since last October’s 1.71 percent – was upgraded to 1.22 percent. January’s downwardly revised 0.03 percent improvement is now estimated at 0.11 percent. And December’s small dip was revised up again – from -0.06 percent to -005 percent.

Consequently, since the last full data month before the CCP Virus began roiling the U.S. economy (February, 2020), domestic manufacturing has expanded by 4.42 percent – up from the 3.37 percent calculable last month.

At the same time, U.S.-based industry is still 2.91 percent smaller than at its all-time peak – reached just before the Great Recession in December, 2007 – although that’s up from the 3.88 percent deficit calculable last month.

March’s biggest manufacturing production winners were:

>automotive, as mentioned above. That was the biggest sequential gain since last October’s 10.64 percent, but it follows a February drop that’s been downgraded from 3.55 percent to 4.64 percent. And that was the worst monthly figure since last September’s 6.32 percent. All these (and previous) ups and downs left after-inflation vehicle and parts production 3.50 percent below their immediate pre-pandemic (February, 2020) levels;

>aerospace and miscellaneous transportation, where after-inflation production rose by 1.90 percent on month. The February advance, was downgraded substantially, from 3.22 percent to 1.64 percent, leaving the March increase the biggest since last July’s 4.21 percent. These industries are now 16.43 percent larger in real terms than in February, 2020;

>electrical equipment, appliances and components’ price-adjusted production climbed 1.03 percent sequentially and February’s increase was revised all the way up from 0.48 pecent to 1.95 percent– best since last July’s 3.24 percent. Inflation-adjusted output in these sectors is now 5.55 percent above thei February, 2020 levels; and

>plastics and rubber products, which displayed a similar pattern. Real output was up 1.14 percent sequentially in March, and February’s results were more than doubled – from +1.46 percent to +3.14 percent. That burst – the best since August, 2020’s 3.85 percent – left constant dollar production for these industries 3.56 percent greater than in immediate pre-pandemic-y February. 2020

In addition machinery, which is such a bellwether for both the rest of industry and the entire economy because of the widespread use of its products, price-adjusted output in March improved by 0.78 percent over February’s results. And although the February improvement was downgraded from 0.78 percent to 0.54 percent, after-inflation machinery production is still up 8.29 percent since February, 2020.

The biggest March manufacturing growth losers were:

>non-metallic mineral products, whose 1.15 percent March monthly decline was the worst such figure since last May’s 2.29 percent decrease. But this drop-off followed a February monthly surge that was upgraded from 3.46 percent to 3.94 percent – the .best such showing the 4.34 percent of June, 2020 – early in the recovery from the deep economic downturn triggered by the first wave of the CCP Virus and related lockdowns and behavioral curbs. Real output in this sector has now risen by 3.28 percent since February. 2020;

>primary metals, where similarly. March’s 1.69 percent fall was the biggest since January’s 2.46 percent drop – and followed a February 2.26 percent increase that was upgraded from the previously reported 2.10 percent and represented the best monthly performance last April’s 3.48 percent. Primary metals inflation-adjusted output is now 1.16 greater than in Februrary, 2020;

>furniture and related products’ after-inflation production sank by 1.51 percent from February to March – the worst such figure since February, 2021’s 3.21 drop. But March’s lousy results followed a February increase that was also more than doubled – from 2.52 percent to a 5.63 jump that was this sector’s best since June 2020’s 5.66 percent. These results brought real output in furniture and related products to within 0.80 percent of its immediate, February, 2020 pre-pndemic level;

>textiles’ 1.46 percent monthly March real output decrease was its worst monthly result since January’s 2.30 percent drop. But it, too, followed a strong February. That month’s improvement was upgraded from 0.03 percent to 0.97 percent – the biggest monthl increase since September’s 1.36 percent. Yet in real terms, the industry is still 5.84 percent smaller than in February. 2020;

>and printing and related support activities. It’s 1.10 percent March sequential after-inflation output retreat was also its worst since January’s 2.16 percent decrease. But it, too, followed a strong February. Indeed, that months’ inflation-adjusted production increase was revised up from 1.66 percent to 2.66 percent – its best such performance since last May’s 2.75 percent rise. This cluster, though, has still shrunk by 4.69 percent in constant dollar terms since February. 2020.

Growth was solid, too, in industries that consistently have made headlines during the pandemic.

In the aircraft and aircraft parts sector, real production increased in March by 2.31 percent. Because February’s initially reported 2.52 percent monthly rise was marked all the way down to 1.13 percent, the March figure became these industries’ best since last July’s 3.44 percent (which I mistakenly reported last month was an August total). January’s results were downgraded, too – and for a second time, to 0.91 percent. But the sector is still 15.86 percent bigger than it was after inflation than in February, 2020.

The big pharmaceuticals and medicines sector turned in a more mixed performance. March’s 1.17 percent price-adjusted monthly production increase was the best such total since last August’s 2.39 percent. But February’s initially reported 1.08 percent gain is now reported as a 1.15 percent loss. January’s constant dollar production change, however, was revised up from a 0.14 percent drop to a 0.45 percent increase. All told, pharamaceuticals and medicines production is 14.75 percent higher afte inflation than in February, 2020.

But the news was unambiguously good in the medical equipment and supplies sector that contains so many of the products needed to fight the pandemic. The March inflation-adjusted output improvement was 1.81 percent and February’s production growth was upgraded from 1.39 pecent to 1.73 percent. Further, the January after-inflation growth figures – which had already been revised up from 2.50 percent to 3.26 percent – was upgraded further to 3.28 percent. And a December result that was first reported as a decline of 2.75 percent is now estimated to be a dip of just 0.37 percent. All told, output in these sectors has increased by 10.80 percent since immediately pre-pandemic-y February, 2020.

And although the national and global semiconductor shortage persists, U.S. domestic production kept rising healthily. Output in March improved month-to-month by 1.99 percent adjusted for inflation, February’s initially reported rise of 1.96 percent was upgraded to 2.87 percent (the best such growth since April, 2017’s 3.78 percent), and January’s downwardly revised 0.37 percent sequential output decline was revised up to a 0.05 percent gain. As a result, semiconductor production is upfully 25.99 percent over its immediate pre-pandemic levels.

The March manufacturing production figures portray a domestic industry resilient enough to withstand not only pestilence but (so far) war and the beginnings of tighter Federal Reserve monetary policy aimed at slowing U.S. growth in the name of reducing  inflation. No one knows what catastrophes the future may hold, or how much more the aforementioned problems could worsen. But it’s looking like any force powerful enough to derail American manufacturing for long may need to be truly Biblical in its proportions.

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of National Radio Interview on Ukraine War, Manufacturing, & Reshoring

Tags

CBS Eye on the World with John Batchelor, China, Following Up, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, IMF, International Monetary Fund, lockdowns, logistics, manufacturing, reshoring, supply chains, Trade, transportation, Ukraine, Ukraine-Russia war, Zero Covid

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview Wednesday night on the nationally syndicated “CBS Eye on the World” with John Batchelor is now on-line.

Click here for a timely discussion (with co-host Gordon G. Chang, too) on how U.S. domestic manufacturing is coping with the Ukraine war and other global supply chain snags – including a possible scenario John brings up that clearly throws me for a loop.  We also comment on a new report from the International Monetary Fund questioning whether reshoring industry back to the United States makes sense in the first place. 

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