(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Big China Mystery Inside the Latest U.S. Trade Figures

Tags

China, exports, goods trade, imports, merchandise trade, non-oil goods trade deficit, Trade, trade deficit, U.S. International Trade Commission, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The big mystery about yesterday’s monthly U.S. trade report (for May) concerns China. Specifically, why are imports from the People’s Republic streaming into the American economy again, considering the stiff, sweeping tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese-made goods destined for U.S. markets, and of course the continuing troubles faced by the U.S. economy from the CCP Virus?

I won’t be able to provide a detailed answer till sometime next week – when I expect the U.S. International Trade Commission to post the data on its website. But I can say right now that these imports were great enough account for more than all of the blame for $4.85 billion (9.74 percent) sequential widening of the overall U.S. trade gap in May.

That combined goods and services trade shortfall hit $54.60 billion – its highest level since October, 2008’s $60.88 billion. And back then, more than half that overall trade deficit was oil. In May, the United States ran an oil trade surplus – as it’s done since last fall.

Moreover, the overall May U.S. goods trade deficit (also known as the merchandise deficit) of $76.06 billion was the biggest such total since December, 2018’s $80.21 billion –and represented a $4.24 billion (5.90 percent) increase from April’s levels.

The specific China goods numbers? The bilateral trade gap widened by $4.49 billion (19.99 percent) sequentially in May – a figure 92.58 percent as big as the entire monthly U.S. trade deficit increase and, as mentioned above, greater than the monthly increase in the merchandise shortfall. In other words, as the goods trade deficit from everywhere else in toto fell during May, it rose from China. (Of course, because the U.S. trades with so many different countries, this doesn’t mean that goods trade shortfalls fell with every one of them other than China. But overall, the non-China goods trade gap narrowed.)

And the role of merchandise imports was as crucial as it is puzzling. U.S. goods imports from China rose on month in May by $5.53 billion (or 17.79 percent). So they alone exceeded the $4.85 billion sequential increase in the overall trade deficit and the $4.24 billion rise in the goods deficit.

Even weirder – goods imports from China were up in May while overall imports and global goods imports were down (by 0.88 percent and by 0.76 percent, respectively).

Despite the widening of the merchandise trade gap with China, U.S. goods exports to the People’s Republic improved on month in May – by $1.04 billion, to $9.64 billion. That’s not terribly surprising, since all indications are that China’s economy began recovering sooner than America’s from its own CCP Virus-induced shutdown. In fact, that monthly merchandise export total is the highest since last November’s $10.10 billion – meaning that those U.S. sales are back in their range for the whole of last year, before the virus broke out in China.

But was the U.S. economy rebounding strongly enough in May to explain easily a resumption of buying from China that also brought goods imports back to their highest level since November, and well inside their range, too, for all of last year? That’s hard to accept, if only because overall U.S. goods imports remain significantly depressed from last year’s levels, and because of those Trump tariffs. Such bewilderment seems justified even given that in recent years, May has been a month during which merchandise imports from China have risen strongly. After all, this wasn’t a normal May.

It’s true that on a year-to-date basis through May, U.S. goods imports from China in 2020 are down 15.90 percent – more than the 12.60 percent drop for goods imports total (but not that much more). The difference is somewhat greater with the 10.35 percent decrease in January-May total U.S. non-oil goods imports – which are a better global comparison with China goods imports, since China doesn’t sell oil to the United States.

It’s also true that the United States’ merchandise deficit with China through May of this year has shrunk much faster (24.58 percent) than its overall global goods deficit (7.78 percent) and much, much faster than its global non-oil goods deficit (2.34 percent). But it’s true as well that a non-trivial amount of this progress has reversed itself this month (as well as in April).

And that’s why I’ll get you the detailed answer to the “what are these China imports” question ASAP.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the New U.S. Trade Report a Virus Portent or Anomaly?

Tags

China, decoupling, Europe, healthcare goods, high tech goods trade, Ireland, manufacturing, pharmaceutical, pharmaceuticals, PPE, protective gear, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, travel services, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Were this morning’s latest monthly U.S. trade figures (for March) just one of those things? Or a sign of CCP Virus-affected trade patterns to come? Evidence for both propositions can be found in the weeds, though on balance I remain confident that as the nation’s economy remains gravely wounded (and could well face worse), its trade shortfall will continue its recent (and highly beneficial) Trump-era trend of narrowing.

The reasons for dismissing the new trade report as an outlier stem from the tendency (with numerous exceptions) of the gap to narrow when the economy weakens and to expand when it strengthens. So it was a real surprise to find that, from February to March, when all indicators showed that a major downturn was beginning thanks to the pandemic, the trade deficit rose a strong 11.57 percent – from a downwardly adjusted $39.81 billion to $44.42 billion.

Also surprising for a U.S. economy that’s not very export focused but that’s usually voracious importer: The main reason for the deficit’s growth both in absolute and percentage terms was a drop-off in the former. In March, total U.S. overseas sales sank on month by 9.63 percent, from an upwardly adjusted $207.75 billion to $187.75 billion. That was the lowest monthly total since November, 2016’s $185.49 billion. Combined goods and services imports were down, too – but by a smaller 6.22 percent, from an upwardly adjusted $247.56 billion to $232.16 billion. That total was the lowest for a month since December, 2016 ($234.56 billion).

Moreover, in terms of the trade balance, March’s worse U.S. performance can’t be pinned on the virus-produced collapse in travel. Make no mistake about it – international travel both to and from the United States did collapse. In value terms, two-way travel sank from $28.77 billion in February to $13.49 billion. In other words, it was more than cut in half. But the travel services trade surplus actually improved during that period – from $4.53 billion to $4.72 billion. That means not only that, on net, legal visitors to the United States (including students) as usual spent more in America than Americans spent overseas between February and March. It means that foreign spending in the United States exceeded Americans’ spending abroad by an even greater amount.

Another puzzling result that doesn’t have obvious staying power – at least not to me: The biggest single contibutor to the March trade deficit increase was a more than doubling of the monthly goods trade shortfall with Europe – from $11.37 billion to $22.97 billion. That’s the biggest monthly total ever and the biggest absolute increase ever (the figures go back to 1997), and the third biggest percentage increase of all time (after July, 1997’s 418.80 percent and March, 1998’s 205.89 percent – both totals coming when trade volumes were much smaller, and big percentage increases therefore much easier to generate).

The big Europe merchandise trade deficit surge, moreover, came on the the import side. These soared to $56.04 billion in March (another record), and the 26.42 percent sequential rise was the biggest since March, 2011’s 29.35 percent.

U.S. goods exports to Europe didn’t do badly – they hit $33.07 billion in March, the third best total ever. But the monthly increase was a bare 0.26 percent.

Some of the Europe trade results were due to a much bigger goods deficit and much greater goods imports from Ireland – which is a major foreign supplier of pharmaceuticals to the United States. Despite the overall sequential decrease in American merchandise exports and imports in March, trade in pharmaceutical preparations rose both coming and going. The trade shortfall increased by 13.25 percent, with imports rising by 14.92 percent. And the goods trade gap with Ireland (not all due to pharmaceuticals, to be sure) soared by 45.81 percent with imports up 41.91 percent.

It’s true that both the deficit with Ireland and imports from the Emerald Isle fell sharply on month in February. But both totals were all-time highs.

At the same time, India is another big pharmaceutical supplier to the United States, and although its March merchandise trade deficit with America shot up by 47.87 percent month-to-month, imports actually dipped (by 0.37 percent).

And what about March U.S. trade with China – which gave the world the virus, and remains a major supplier of the chemical building blocks of pharmaceutical products as well as protective medical gear?

In an unmistakably good development for those who recognize both the health security and broader economic dangers of doing extensive business with a predatory trader that’s increasingly hostile geopolitically, the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the People’s Republic plummeted dramatically again – by just over 26 percent month-to-month, to $11.83 billion. You’d have to go back to March, 2004 to find a lower monthly figure ($10.44 billion).

U.S. goods exports to China actually improved sequentially in March – by 16.98 percent, to $7.97 billion. That’s far from the biggest absolute or percentage monthly increase on record. But with China’s economic growth at multi-decade lows due largely to the virus and the Trump tariffs, it’s encouraging that America’s goods exports to China have held up since the Phase One trade deal was signed in January.

U.S. goods imports from China, meanwhile, fell by 13.18 percent on month in March, to $19.81 billion. That total is the lowest since February, 2009 ($18.85 billion), during the depths of the Great Recession.

On a year-to-date basis, the American merchandise merchandise deficit with the People’s Republic is now down an astonishing 32.61 percent. That’s nearly three times more than the comparable drop in the global U.S. goods deficit, and a clear sign that trade diversion and decoupling from China are taking place even as the overall American trade gap narrows – and are likely to continue taking place.

Two other oddities worth noting in the March trade report. First, the manufacturing deficit rebounded from February’s $63.01 billion (the lowest total since February, 2017’s $60.47 billion) to $75.80 billion. That’s a very big 20.30 percent higher. Even though overseas markets for America’s domestic manufacturers are tumbling into recession and maybe worse along with the U.S. economy, manufacturing exports still managed a monthly gain of 3.55 percent in March – to $93.26 billion. But despite signs of weakness in domestic U.S. manufacturing and the overall economy, manufacturing imports shot up by 10.45 percent, to $169.06 billion. It’s difficult to see how either trend lasts until the CCP Virus is brought under control.

Incidentally, the March totals bring the manufacturing trade gap to $220.75 billion so far this year – down 7.01 percent from last year’s comparable $237.38 billion. Manufacturing exports year-to-date as of March are down four percent, and imports have declined 5.38 percent.

Similarly, the longstanding U.S. trade shortfall in high tech goods more than doubled sequentially in March, from $5.13 billion to $10.30 billion. Sure, this increase followed a 55.62 percent plunge in February, but the turnaround is still stunning. And although high tech exports rose in March on month by a healthy 8.55 percent, the big change, as in February, was on the import side – where U.S. purchases from abroad jumped by 22.24 percent.

More detailed March trade data — particularly shedding more light on U.S. trade in healthcare-related goods — should be out from the federal government shortly, and I’ll be sure to keep you up to date on those developments.   

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Through the Looking Glass With the New US GDP Report?

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, durable goods, exports, GDP, goods, Great Depression, Great Recession, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, non-durable goods, oil, real GDP, real trade deficit, services, trade deficit, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s U.S. government report on the shrinkage of the American gross domestic product (GDP) in the first quarter of the year is fascinating not because it can provide any idea about how bad the CCP Virus-induced economic downturn is right now, much less how bad it will get. Instead, it’s fascinating because it provides (and confirms) some insights on which sectors of the economy have been the biggest winners and losers, and which could fare best and worst going forward.

First, a vitally important explanatory point: When you read that the economy contracted by 4.8 percent between the last three months of 2019 and the first three months of 2020 after factoring in inflation, remember that this figure is an annualized figure. That is, it doesn’t mean that the nation’s output of goods and services (the definition of GDP) fell by that amount all at once during the first quarter. It means that if the contraction that did occur continued at the same pace over the course of a full year, the cumulative drop would add up to 4.8 percent. (NB: The real decline was 4.87 percent, even though the Commerce Department rounded it down to 4.8 for some reason.)

The same cautionary note goes for all the terrifying predictions for the second quarter in particular, to the effect that inflation-adjusted GDP would plummet by 20 percent of 30 percent. They’re annualized rates, too.

No doubt about it – even the new annualized numbers are terrible. (And unless otherwise specified, all the following statistics will represent sequential – i.e., quarter-to-quarter – rates of change.) That’s not because they’re the worst that Americans have seen lately. That dubious honor goes to the fourth quarter of 2008, during the Great Recession, when real GDP sank at an 8.66 percent annual rate. Instead, it’s because the main shutdowns of business didn’t start until mid-March. Since the first quarter ended on March 31, a genuinely appalling amount of damage took place in a very short period of time.

As a result, surely the numbers for the second quarter will be much worse, as the lockdowns themselves spread for weeks thereafter, and their effects have had time to sink in (even though the second quarter figures presumably will reflect some of the cautious easing and reopening that’s begun). Also possibly leading to more depressing future results: Today’s first quarter figures are the first of three reports for the first quarter we’ll be getting this year. As Washington gathers more complete information, the reported nosedive could well get steeper.

The principal ray of hope comes in the nature of the downturn. It was literally ordered by America’s national, state, and local governments. Whatever recession or depression that’s begun says little about the fundamentals of the economy pre-virus – unlike typical recessions, which result from weaknesses in expansions that for various reasons finally come to light, or are brought to light by the Federal Reserve (in many cases) – which in modern times, has reacted to signs of economic excesses (like accelerating inflation), by raising interest rates (that is, increasing the cost of borrowing for everyone) and trying to bring price changes back under control. (And yes, a big exception was the Fed’s record during the previous, so-called Bubble Decade, when its principal aim seemed to be to juice growth at all costs – in that case, at the risk of scary degrees of financial instability.)

All the same, the biological roots of this economic slump create great uncertainties about the rate of recovery, since no one can know how quickly Americans will return to patronizing service sector business in particular, which comprise the vast bulk of the economy, and so many of which largely serve customers in person.

In that vein, it’s more than a little interesting that output in services shrank in the first quarter at a much faster annual rate (10.63 percent) than goods output (1.35 percent). Dig a little deeper, though, and you see that the numbers for goods are sharply divided. After-inflation output of durables (products supposed to last for three years or more either in use or on the shelf – like autos and appliances) plunged by 17.12 percent at annual rates. But constant dollar production of non-durables (notably processed food but also chemicals and paper and textile and plastics and others) actually increased – by 6.77 percent.

Those goods and services figures are contained in the “personal consumption expenditures” category of each GDP report. And overall, such consumption dropped by 7.78 percent annualized in the first quarter. Notably, that’s a much worse result than anything seen during the last, Great, recession (which, by the way, was the previous deepest economic slump experienced in the United States since the Great Depression of the 1930s). During that most recent downturn, personal spending’s decrease bottomed out with a 3.72 percent annualized fall in the fourth quarter of 2008.

No – to get to a worse consumption figure than just recorded, you need to go all the way back to the second quarter of 1980, during a horrible period marked by a painful recession and roaring inflation partly produced by sharp oil price increases. Then, such spending cratered at a 9.01 percent annual rate, and the entire economy shrank by 8.23 percent annualized.

Of course, the American economy entails more than just personal consumption (although, as known by RealityChek regulars, such spending represented a big majority of all economic activity– 69.27 percent of real GDP at present – even after the big decreases in the first quarter). Business investment amounted to 14.03 percent of GDP after inflation, and its levels were off considerably, too, in the first quarter – by 8.92 percent.

No doubt, that’s going to worsen, since the lower personal spending, as well as the lower business spending itself, mean that so many businesses will be short of customers for the time being. Even so, the Great Recession numbers were much worse. From the fourth quarter of 2008 through the second quarter of 2009, this “non-residential fixed investment” tumbled at double-digit quarterly rates, with the bottom coming during the first quarter of 2009 (a 30.14 percent plummet!).

And what about America’s trade performance? The constant dollar trade deficit narrowed by 9.25 percent – from $900.7 billion (again, that’s an annualized figure) to $817.4 billion. That deficit number is the lowest quarterly figure since the $761.4 billion recorded in the fourth quarter of 2016. Yet the rate of decrease was almost matched by that of the fourth quarter of last year (9.03 percent). To find a comparable result, you’d have to go back to the fourth quarter of 2013 (9.24 percent).

One big question: How much of this latest drop was due to oil? We know that the general answer is “a lot” – even though in principle these results take into account (i.e., factor out) the recent crash in oil prices. Nonetheless, a dramatically slowed U.S. economy is going to consume less oil overall (ditto for a recessed global economy, something to ponder since the United States is now an oil exporter). So we’ll need to look at the volume numbers and then compare them with those of previous quarters when the trade deficit dropped significantly for a fuller picture.

What is clear so far, though – in terms of the real overall trade deficit, the first quarter 2020 decline pales before those experienced during the Great Recession. In particular, the real trade gap decreased by 15.08 percent annualized during the first quarter of 2009 and by 18.13 percent during the following quarter.

In line with the consumption findings, moreover, services trade performed worse than (the much greater amount of) goods trade. The goods deficit was 7.39 percent narrower in the first quarter of 2020 ($0.9995 trillion annualized) than during the fourth quarter of 2019 ($1.0792 trillion annualized). But the services surplus rose by only 2.07 percent (from $188.2 billion annualized to $192.1 billion).

Especially revealing were the import and export findings. For goods, exports were off by only 0.30 percent – from $1.7823 trillion annualized to $1.7769 trillion. But for services, they dropped by 5.85 percent (from $758.6 billion annualized to $714.2 billion).

The services export and imports decreases were the biggest on record – by far. And although figures only go back to the first quarter of 2002, can anyone seriously doubt that these results reflect the numerous international travel bans sparked by the United States – and so many other countries?

Because services play such a predominant role in the economy, and because services that need to be delivered in person, like dining out and travel, represent such big shares of the economy (just short of 3.25 percent of all private sector output for restaurants, bars, and lodging places alone as of late 2019, and a much bigger 11.06 percent of the private sector workforce), it seems reasonable at this point to expect these sectors to keep taking particularly powerful blows at least as long as the virus remains a pandemic.   

Im-Politic: Evidence that Trump Would Be Foolish Not to “Run on China”

Tags

2020 election, CCP Virus, China, climate change, coronavirus, COVID 19, cybersecurity, Democrats, environment, Gallup, human rights, Im-Politic, Jobs, Joe Biden, Pew Research Center, polls, public opinion, Republicans, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, trade war, Trump, Wuhan virus

Monday I laid out the case that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has cheer-led every major Washington policy decision in recent decades that has enabled the rise of a wealthy, powerful, and worst of all, hostile and dangerous China. So it’s at least awfully interesting that the day after, a new poll was released making clear that the Trump campaign’s decision to brand the former Vice President as “soft on China” is not only on the mark substantively, but a smart political move.

The poll, conducted by the Pew Research Center, shows that Americans of all political stripes have turned into strong China critics. And especially important – there’s much more going on here than blaming Beijing for the CCP Virus outbreak. Respondents across-the-board now strongly agree that China poses a major threat to a wide range of U.S. interests – including on the trade front, where President Trump’s tariffs were widely reported to be devastating pretty much every major group of actors in the American economy, from businesses to consumers, and from farmers to manufacturers.

P.S. It’s not like Pew has ever itself shown any signs of being critical of China. Indeed, its introduction to the results includes this moral equivalence-friendly assessment: “…with the onset of an unprecedented pandemic, the stage has been set for both sides to cast aspersions on the other.”

The finding Pew emphasizes is a dramatic rise in unfavorable American views of China since Mr. Trump’s inauguration. When he entered office at the beginning of 2017 , the respondents Pew interviewed disapproved of China, but only by a narrow 47 percent to 44 percent margin. The most recent results show unfavorable ratings thumping favorable by 66 percent to 26 percent. The latest negative reviews garnered by Beijing, moreover, represent its worst such showing since Pew began asking the question in 2005.

And as Pew points out, looking at this divergence over time makes clear that China’s ratings began deteriorating long before the virus appeared. In fact, the sharpest increases in Beijing’s unfavorables and sharpest decreases in its favorables started in 2018 – when the administration began announcing and imposing steep levies on huge amounts of prospective imports from China.

Indeed, China’s image among Americans is now so bad that it’s shared among Democrats and Republicans alike. Frustratingly, the survey doesn’t measure the attitudes of declared political independents, but the latest figures show that 72 percent of Republicans and those “leaning” Republican hold unfavorable views of China, and that 62 percent of Democrats and their “leaners” agree. And both negatives are up sharply since the trade war began – or more accurately, since the United States started fighting back.

Not that trade is the only China-related concern expressed in the Pew survey, or even the strongest. Pew gauged U.S. opinion on several China-related issues, and the biggest worries were voiced over “China’s impact on the global environment.” Fully 91 percent of respondents labeled it as a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem for the United States, the former responses hitting 61 percent. Next came “cyberattacks from China,” rated as problems by 8 percent of those surveyed, and as “very serious” problems by 57 percent.

Coming in third and fourth were the economic issues. Eighty five percent saw the U.S. trade deficit with China as a problem, including 49 percent calling it serious. And for “the loss of U.S. jobs to China,” the numbers came in at 85 percent and 52 percent, respectively. Interestingly, those latter results nearly matched those for the issue of “China’s growing military power” (84 percent and 49 percent, respectively).

Important to note, however, is evidence that, high as they are, the economic concerns have been leveling off in recent years, while the environmental concerns have been rising (along with those centered on human rights). That’s not necessarily great news for Mr. Trump, whose focus has been on the jobs and overall economy impact (along with the technological threat from China – which is a major source of public China-related concern).

Much better news for the President – Americans aged 50 and older (whose voter turnout rates have long been high) – hold the most negative views of China. Yet this year, Beijing’s image has turned negative for Americans in the 18-29 age class for the first time ever. And for both groups, disapproval of China surged starting in 2018.

Of course, China’s not the only issue on which Americans will be voting this fall. But the latest Gallup results, for example, show that virus-related issues have surged to the top of their rankings for the “most important problem facing the U.S.” If the President can link the virus with the overall China challenge in voters’ minds, his odds of reelection would seem to be pretty good. His biggest obstacle? Possibly the companion Gallup finding that right behind the virus on the list of national problems is “The government/poor leadership.”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Yes, These New (Pre-CCP Virus) U.S. Trade Figures Really Matter

Tags

Atlanta Fed, Boeing, Census Bureau, China, exports, GDP, gross domestic product, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, New York Fed, Pacific Rim, real GDP, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

There’s no doubt that the pre-CCP Virus U.S. economic data that still keep coming out (and that will continue coming out for months) has at best strongly limited utility nowadays – with one gigantic caveat. They speak volumes about how the economy was faring before the virus’ invasion, and the message they’re sending is especially important for evaluating the effects of President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies.

Specifically, they make abundantly clear that the economy was humming along just (and in many ways, increasingly) fine even though steep Trump levies have remained on literally hundreds of billions of dollar worth of potential goods imports – mainly on products from China and steel and aluminum from numerous countries. So you can take the mountain of claims that these duties would wreck American prosperity and throw them on the trash heap. And new reinforcement for this analysis has appeared this morning in the form of the latest official monthly U.S. trade figures (for February) from the Census Bureau.

First, let’s look at the growth numbers, as reported in terms of a measure called “gross domestic product” (GDP). It gauges the nation’s output of goods and services, and the most closely watched figures are those adjusted for inflation.

There’s no doubt that real growth slowed from the time the first Trump-specific tariffs (on metals) were imposed in March, 2018. That year, after-inflation GDP expanded by a healthy 2.93 percent. But the rate slowed notably during that year, certainly at least coinciding with the impact of the tariffs taking hold. It’s also important to point out that China duties began in mid-year, were increased, and plans for many more were announced. (See the timeline linked immediately above for the specifics). 

Growth slowed in full year, 2019, but just to 2.33 percent – still solid by recent U.S. (meaning post-2008 financial crisis) standards. And the nation was dealing not only with trade war fallout, but the safety problems plaguing aircraft giant Boeing and its vast national supply chain.

We don’t have constant dollar GDP results for the first quarter of this year yet, but two regional branches of the Federal Reserve system try to track growth on a timely, ongoing basis. And the pre-virus grades they both gave the economy were encouraging. According to the Atlanta Fed, first quarter after-inflation growth was proceeding at a better-than-three percent annual pace through late March – even though virus infections and deaths were rising troublingly.

(It’s crucial to note, especially in light of shockingly bad recent virus-era growth – and in fact contraction – estimates from private sector economists, that such annualized figures describe growth rates as if the quarterly results lasted for an entire year. That is, the growth or contraction they describe does not represent actual GDP change for that quarter – and as a result, they shouldn’t be taken to revealing that the increases or decreases that are forecast will take place all at once.)

The New York Fed’s estimates tend to be lower than Atlanta’s, but they still predicted an annualized 2.14 percent inflation-adjusted first quarter growth rate as late as February 28. By March 27, that estimate had fallen to 1.68 percent annualized.

And what’s happened to the U.S. trade deficit for the first two months of 2020 – in other words, the first two-thirds of the first quarter of the year? By the broadest measure, which counts both goods and services, it’s down 18.71 percent year-on-year. (This and the following trade numbers are presented in pre-inflation terms, since such figures dominate the detailed results contained in the monthly trade reports.) Better yet, decline has been accelerating. Between December and January, the total trade gap fell by 6.44 percent – from $48.61 billion to $45.48 billion. From January to February, it sank by another 12.20 percent – nearly twice as fast – to $39.93 billion. (The initially reported January number was revised up slightly today.)

That February figure was the lowest since the $39.92 billion registered in April, 2016 – when the economy was growing only a bit more slowly, but when there were no serious problems facing then-export standout Boeing. Moreover, the February monthly drop was the biggest since March, 2018 (12.34 percent) – just as the first Trump metals tariffs were coming into effect.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the best way to judge how trade policy decisions have affected the trade figures is to look at the data measuring the nation’s trade flows minus oil and services (which have never been greatly affected by trade agreements or tariffs). For the first two months of this year, this Made in Washington trade deficit is off by 9.64 percent in pre-inflation terms. Here, too, the rate of decrease is getting faster, with February’s sequential 7.97 percent plummet the biggest such decrease since the 9.45 percent nosedive that took place in January, 2019 – as the China trade war was peaking in terms of tariff impositions. And the $60.76 billion February total is the lowest for a single month since September, 2017’s $60.65 billion.

Speaking of China, a combination of Beijing’s widespread CCP Virus lockdowns and Trump tariffs brought the February U.S. goods trade gap with the People’s Republic all the way down to $16 billion. That’s the lowest such total since the $15.65 billion recorded in Great Recession-ary March, 2009. And the monthly falloff (38.62 percent) was the biggest since December, 1993’s 39.46 percent. That was more than 26 years ago!

Moreover, even though U.S. merchandise exports to China slipped by 5.55 percent on month, U.S. goods imports from China dropped by 31.45 percent. The actual U.S. export level of $6.82 billion was indeed the lowest since June, 2010’s $6.73 billion. But the import level of $22.81 billion was the lowest monthly total since Great Recession-ary May, 2009’s $22.73 billion. And the sequential import drop was the biggest since the 34.07 percent of April, 1986 – nearly 34 years ago, when the much smaller volumes of U.S.-China trade made big percentage moves much easier to produce.

Also important – even as the China year-to-date goods trade deficit has declined by 28.99 percent, the U.S. goods trade gap with Pacific Rim countries (a grouping that does not include Western Hemisphere countries like America’s U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement partners) is off by 25.30 percent. So say so long to the claim that the Trump tariffs have simply shifted the deficit to other Asian countries.

The news was equally good on the manufacturing trade front. America’s mammoth manufacturing trade deficit shrank on month in February from $81.93 billion to $63.01 billion. The February total is the lowest such figure since February, 2017’s $60.47 billion. Meanwhile, the 23.09 percent monthly drop is the biggest since December, 2012’s 27.11 percent decrease.

Further, the deficit fell for all the right reasons. Despite the continued overall economic growth, U.S. manufacturing imports were off 8.98 percent, to $153.07 billion while exports actually grew – by 4.42 percent, to $90.06 billion.

As a result, the manufacturing trade shortfall is down year-to-date so far as well – by 9.65 percent, from $160.43 billion to $144.94 billion.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Solid Manufacturing Jobs and Trade Numbers Despite Boeing’s Woes

Tags

Boeing, China, exports, imports, Jobs, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, manufacturing trade deficit, Phase One, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, {What's Left of) Our Economy

You say U.S. manufacturing jobs keep growing too slowly? You say manufacturing’s trade deficit remains too high, and its exports inadequate? According to two big new government reports on the state of the American economy this morning, if you do, you should also be saying (with beaucoup de snark) “Thanks, Boeing!”

For it keeps getting clearer that the aerospace giant’s safety woes and resulting production halt of its (once) popular 737 Max model are sandbagging both measures of manufacturing’s performance – and not trivially. Don’t forget the silver lining, however.  Despite the Boeing effect, domestic industry has been holding up encouragingly well. 

The evidence is clearest from the trade figures. As reported last month in RealityChek, if not for a big deterioration in the civilian aircraft trade balance (until recently the sector of the entire economy with the biggest trade surplus), the full-year 2019 manufacturing trade shortfall would barely have grown over the 2018 level. And since industry itself increased output last year in pre-inflation terms, (at least through the latest – third quarter – data available), that represented a heartening sign that domestic manufacturing was becoming more self-reliant.

In January, the manufacturing shortfall actually fell month-to-month (by 0.38 percent, from $82.24 billion to $81.93 billion, and $850 million in absolute terms). The mix wasn’t exactly ideal: Imports were down 3.11 percent, but the value of exports (which are much smaller) fell by 5.58 percent.

But the civilian aircraft trade surplus plunged 44.43 percent – from $3.06 billion to $1.70 billion. So in January, had the sector simply equaled its December trade performance, the January manufacturing deficit would have been not $81.93 billion but $80.57 billion – the lowest total since last March’s $76.96 billion, and a monthly drop of 2.03 percent, not 0.38 percent. Further, manufacturing exports would have been $87.93 billion rather than $86.25 billion – or down only 3.74 percent, not 5.58 percent.

The picture is muddier for manufacturing employment because the data for civilian aircraft and their parts is reported one month after most other industry-by-industry jobs statistics. Another complication: The new jobs report overall goes up to February.

More puzzling still: Although latest statistics for the Boeing-related categories are January, they’re little changed from the December totals even though the 737 Max production suspension was announced in the middle of that month.

But it’s still legit to wonder whether they would’ve been better without the Boeing crisis. And how much better? Moreover, the vast aircraft supply chain encompasses dozens of manufacturing sectors beyond the engines and parts themselves. After all, these systems are in turn made of any number of components and materials. Boeing’s difficulties, therefore, could have been holding back manufacturing job growth broadly speaking for months.

Even so, industry as a whole added 15,000 jobs sequentially in February – it’s best such performance (except for a November increase that was aided by the end of the General Motors strike) since January, 2019’s 20,000.

And let’s not forget – industry achieved this employment gain even though the “Phase One” trade deal with China has left stiff U.S. tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of imported goods from China, as well as on much foreign steel and aluminum.

No doubt the coronavirus outbreak could send the manufacturing performance arrows pointing down again, or leveling off, in the next few months. But the new jobs and trade data make clear that despite an external (Boeing) shock that has nothing to do with President Trump’s trade wars, and despite the trade curbs he has enacted, domestic manufacturing has been on the rebound lately, and showed impressive resilience that bodes well for its future – and the entire economy’s.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: 2019’s Biggest U.S. Trade Industry Winners & Losers, Part 2

Tags

exports, goods trade deficit, imports, manufacturing, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Wednesday’s RealityChek post showed that, although in 2019, the United States made significant progress in curbing the growth of its chronic and massive trade deficits, the sectoral makeup of those deficits (and the group of industries that ran surpluses) changed significantly only in terms of those parts of the economy whose trade balances improved and worsened the most year-on-year. (The post only covered goods trade, as will this one, since detailed data for services industries isn’t yet available.)

Indeed, compared with the trade flows of 2016 (the final year of the Obama administration, and therefore the final year of a multi-decade U.S. trade policy status quo that President Trump is trying to overturn), the industries that dominated last year’s list of sectors with the biggest trade surpluses and deficits stayed practically the same – including in ranking. But the list of sectors whose trade balances changed the most for good or ill saw almost complete turnover.

Today’s post examines the export and import figures as such (rather than the deficits and surpluses) to see if the same trends have unfolded. And the overall picture looks pretty similar. The biggest difference is that there was somewhat less turnover between the 2016 and 2019 lists of industries with the fastest import and export growth than between the 2016 and 2019 lists of industries with the fastest changes in trade deficits and trade surpluses.

Let’s lead off with the Top 20 exporting industries. As with the trade surplus lists presented yesterday, these industry categories come from the now-standard U.S. government system for slicing and dicing the nation’s economy – the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). And the categories are those comprising NAICS’ most granular level of disaggregation – the 6-digit level.

In addition, this export list and the list of the fastest export growers leaves out an aerospace category that, due to reporting limitations, lumps together aircraft and their parts and components – figures that can be highly misleading in an era where those goods are often produced both in the United States and abroad. (You will, however, notice other aerospace categories that purport to distinguish between the finished good and its parts. Even though they don’t seem to track with the numbers provided for that catch-all aerospace category, I’m including them anyway where they come up.)

A final anomaly: Although trade figures are provided by the government for a (combined) crude oil and natural gas category for 2016 (and years before), this sector disappears in 2018 and 2019. And it’s not clear what, if anything has replaced it. Given the big recent swings in America’s energy trade, that’s anything but a trivial omission.

And now the list of Top 20 exporters, in descending order of export value. In the right-hand column, you’ll see where these same industries ranked in the Top 20 in 2016.

Leading 2019 export sectors                                              2016 rank

(including annual percentage change)

1. petroleum refinery products: -9.9 percent                           1

2. special classification goods: +5.2 percent                           4

3. semiconductors: +3.8 percent                                              3

4. autos and light duty trucks:: +9.3 percent                           2

5. broadcast & wireless communs equip: -6.4 percent           5

6. misc basic organic chemicals: -5.5 percent                        7

7. plastics materials & resins: -1.0 percent                            9

8. jewelry & silverware: -8.5 percent                                     6

9. pharmaceutical preparations: +14.4 percent                       8

10. computer parts: -6.5 percent                                           10

11. non-diagnostic biological products: +11.5 percent         13

12. used or second-hand merchandise: -3.8 percent             14

13. waste and scrap: -4.9 percent                                          16

14. surgical and medical instruments: +3.5 percent              15

15. soybeans: +9.1 percent                                                   12

16. non-poultry meat products: -0.2 percent                        18

17.semiconductor machinery: -14.9 percent                        19

18. misc motor vehicle parts: -4.7 percent                           17

19. misc basic inorganic chemicals: -2.8 percent                 –

20. construction machinery: -6.9 percent                             –

Just like the list of the Top 20 trade deficit and trade surplus industries, the 2016 and 2019 lists of top exporters are very similar. Not even the specific rankings have changed very much, with the exceptions of waste and scrap (which moved from 16^th place in 2016 to 13^th place in 2019) and soybeans (which fell from twelfth place in 2016 to 15^th place last year).

The soybean results of course are interesting for another reason: They clearly stem in part from tariffs placed on them by recent mega-customer China in 2018 following Mr. Trump’s early trade war levies. Beijing didn’t begin resuming short-term purchases until last summer, and greatly boosted purchases beginning last fall, as negotiations leading to the eventual Phase One trade deal continued.

Also of interest – despite the retaliatory tariffs by China and other countries, 15 of these top 20 exports in 2019 were manufactured products, a slightly higher percentage than the 14 of 20 in pre-trade war 2016.

The patterns were rather different for export growth. Below are the Top 20 for 2019. As with the trade balance change figures from yesterday, these are drawn from the hundred biggest export industries, to avoid the “law of small numbers” problem. They leave out that catch-all aerospace sector, too.

Leading 2018-19 export growers                                      2016 rank

1. aircraft: +122.2 percent                                                        1

2. oil & gas field mach & equip: +27.7 percent                       –

3. wheat: +14.8 percent                                                            –

4. petrochemicals: +14.6 percent                                             –

5. pharmaceutical preparations: +14.4 percent                        –

6. light trucks and utility vehicles: +13.7 percent                    6

7. aircraft parts & auxiliary equip: +11.8 percent                   15

8. non-diagnostic biological products: +11.5 percent              8

9. misc non-ferrous metals extruding: +11.3 percent              –

10. dried, condensed, evap dairy products: +11.3 percent      –

11. search, detection, navigation devices: +9.9 percent         17

12. autos & light trucks: +9.3 percent                                     –

13. soybeans: +9.1 percent                                                       2  

14. tree nuts: +8.4 percent                                                        –

15. surgical appliances & supplies: +7.9 percent                     –

16. misc foods: +5.7 percent                                                   12

17. motors & generators: +5.4 percent                                     –

18. turbines & turbine generator sets: +5.2 percent (t)             –

18. other special classification items: +5.2 percent (t)             –

19. electromedical devices: +5.1 percent (t)                            –

19. in vitro diagnostic substances: 5.1 percent (t)                  10

20. opthalmic goods: +4.7 percent                                           –

The difference with the list of top exporters is clear, as there’s much less overlap with this group of industries and its 2016 counterparts. At the same time, another noteworthy difference deserves attention: There’s significantly more overlap between these two lists of exporters than between the list of top trade surplus industries and biggest trade balance improvers, or than between the lists of top importing industries and sectors whose trade balances worsened the most.

The overlap above consists of seven of the twenty sectors found on each list. Moreover, three of these seven made significant moves in the rankings (both up and down): soybeans (way down); search, detection, and navigation devices; and aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment (both up considerably).

By contrast, only four industries appeared on both the list of the biggest trade balance “improver” industries for 2016 and for 2019.

The numbers also contain good news for the President’s objective of boosting domestic manufacturing: In 2019, 18 of 22 of the biggest export growers were manufacturing sectors – up from 16 of 23 in 2016 (counting industries whose export growth rates were tied).

The same kinds of developments generally appear on the import side. Below is a table showing the Top 20 importing industries (again, drawn from the top hundred importing industries and excluding the catch-all aerospace sector, and with their 2016 ranking in the right-hand column).

Leading 2019 import sectors                                                            2016 rank

(including annual percentage change)

1. autos & light trucks: +1.1 percent                                                       1

2. broadcast & wireless communs: -8.4 percent                                      2

3. pharmaceutical preparations: +12.3 percent                                        4

4. goods returned: +13.4 percent                                                              5

5. computers: $73.68b                                                                               6

6. petroleum refinery products: -0.8 percent                                             9

7. female cut & sew apparel: -1.7 percent                                                 8

8. non-diagnostic biological products: +15.8 percent                             19

9. semiconductors: -4.9 percent                                                                7

10. misc motor vehicle parts: -1.9 percent                                               11

11. misc basic organic chemicals: -6.8 percent                                        13

12. jewelry & silverware: -11.6 percent                                                   10

13. male cut & sew apparel: +4.0 percent                                                15

14. audio & video equipment: -2.5 percent                                              12

15. non-aluminum, non-ferrous metal smelting, refining: -3.1 percent   14

16. aircraft engines & engine parts: +18.2 percent                                   –

17. iron & steel & ferroalloy products: -20.00 percent                            17

18. footwear: +2.1 percent                                                                       16

19. light trucks & utility vehicles: +16.7 percent                                     –

20. misc plastics products: +3.8 percent                                                   –

Major overlap comes through loud and clear between the 2016 and 2019 lists, and only non-diagnostic biological products made a significant move (way up).

Here, however, the manufacturing news wasn’t as good for Trump-World or for the American economy (if you believe, as you should, that a strong manufacturing sector is crucial for sustainable prosperity). In 2016, 17 of the 20 biggest importing industries were in manufacturing. In 2019, this number rose to 19.

Leading 2018-19 import growers                                                     2016 rank

1. aircraft engines & engine parts: +18.2 percent                                   –

2. light trucks & utility vehicles: +16.7 percent                                     4

3. non-diagnostic biological products: +15.8 percent                            3

4. aircraft: +15.2 percent                                                                        –

5. goods returned: +13.4 percent                                                           –

6. pharmaceutical preparations: +12.3 percent                                     –

7. surgical & medical instruments: +11.0 percent                               10

8. misc electrical equipment & components: +10.1 percent                –

9. construction machinery: +8.9 percent                                             –

10. bread & bakery products: +7.6 percent                                         –

11. distilled liquors: +7.4 percent                                                       –

12. surgical appliances & supplies: +7.0 percent                               –

13. non-potato vegetables and melons: +6.3 percent                         7

14. aircraft parts & auxiliary equip: +5.6 percent                             –

15. electromedical apparatus: +5.1 percent (t)                                  –

15. sporting & athletic goods: +5.1 percent (t)                                 –

15. relays & industrial controls: +5.1 percent (t)                              –

16. misc manufactures: +4.5 percent (t)                                          20

16. wines, brandy & brandy spirits: +4.5 percent (t)                      16

17. semiconductor machinery: +4.4 percent                                    –

18. misc measuring & controlling devices: +4.2 percent                –

19. male cut & sew apparel: +4.0 percent                                       –

20. non-poultry meat products: +3.9 percent                                  –

There’s much less overlap between this list and its 2016 counterpart than between the 2019 top importers list and its 2016 counterpart. But whereas the 2016 lists of top importers and top trade balance “worseners” had only three sectors in common, the 2019 lists have six sectors in common. And three of them (miscellaneous manufactures, vegetables and melons except for potatoes, and surgical and medical instruments) shifted significantly in the rankings.

Again, however, no improvement came about from a manufacturing standpoint. In 2016, 18 of the 20 industries whose trade balances deteriorated the most were found in manufacturing. In 2019, the figure was 20 of 23. 

The trade landscape of course will change dramatically this year.  An agreement with China expressly providing for massive increases in U.S. exports has been signed, as has an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  At the same time, stiff tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of prospective imports from China remain in place, along with levies on steel and aluminum imports from numerous major foreign producers. 

In other words, the next few years could speak volumes about whether a New (and better) Normal has set in for U.S. trade flows both at the macro- and micro-economic levels, or not.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Strong Internals for America’s 2019 Trade Performance

Tags

Advanced Technology Products, aircraft, Boeing, China, manufacturing, merchandise trade deficit, North America, Pacific Rim, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, Trump, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Because last week’s official U.S. trade figures came out right after President Trump’s acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial and the confusing Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses, I didn’t get the chance to issue more than a limited analysis focusing on some very encouraging highlights for backers of administration trade policy. But the newsworthy results from the release – which covered December and therefore full-year 2019 – by no means stopped there.

For example, the biggest annual drop on record in the still-massive U.S. goods trade deficit with China was accompanied by the shrinking of the value of total merchandise trade between the two economies by more than 18 percent – to its lowest level ($558.87 billion) since 2012 ($536.14 billion). Moreover, since the U.S. economy has grown significantly over the last seven years, this sign of decoupling looks all the more impressive.

Also crucial – although that merchandise trade deficit remains way too big, the portion most heavily influenced by trade policy barely grew (and grew much slower than the overall economy). And even better, the overall merchandise trade deficit became more concentrated within North America. That’s could be a big positive for two reasons. 

First, even before the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)came into force, with its modest spurs to regional production and sourcing, American imports from its two neighbors contained relatively high levels of U.S. content. That means that domestic industries and their employees had a relatively big share of their production – along with the associated revenues, jobs, and wages. (At the same time, there’s now considerable disagreement over how these Canada and Mexico content levels compare with goods imported from elsewhere.  See, e.g., here and here.)

Less controversy surrounds the second argument for North American-izing U.S. trade:  America’s fortunes are much more directly affected by the well-being of its immediate neighbors than by conditions elsewhere.

And the new trade report shows that North American-ization advanced rapidly last year. Specifically, between 2018 and 2019, China’s share of this trade gap sank from 47.96 percent to 41.84 percent and that of Pacific Rim countries (an official U.S. government grouping that excludes the Western Hemisphere) from 58.26 percent to 53.37 percent. But North America’s share jumped from 11.40 percent t 15.10 percent.

Moreover, the Chinese share was the lowest since 2011 (40.70 percent), the Pacific Rim’s since 2012 (52.44 percent) and North America’s the highest of the current economic recovery. So anyone telling you that, under President Trump, the merchandise trade deficit has simply changed composition, with no net benefit for America, needs a clue.

The news was also unquestionably good on the manufacturing trade deficit front. As with the China goods deficit, it remains way too humongous. But between 2018 and 2019, it grew at the slowest annual rate (1.09 percent) since 2016. That year – the final year of the Obama administration – this trade shortfall actually shrank by 1.19 percent

Full-year 2019 data for domestic manufacturing output aren’t available yet, so it’s not possible to make the crucial comparison between this trade deficit progress and industry’s overall growth. (It’s up on a third-quarter-to-third-quarter basis, though.) But when evaluating how the manufacturing trade results reflect on President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies, it’s essential to take into account one major development that has had nothing to do with these policies – the safety woes of aircraft giant and usual trade surplus standout Boeing.

During 2019, that small rise in the manufacturing trade deficit amounted to $11.15 billion. There’s no doubt, however, that Boeing’s problems have cut deeply into its trade performance. In fact, last year, the civilian aircraft trade surplus fell from $40.25 billion to $29.77 billion – a difference of $10.48 billion. As a result, had this trade balance simply remained the same, the overall manufacturing trade deficit would have practically leveled off.

Further, Boeing’s problems also worsened the nation’s trade deficit in advanced technology products – which continued worsening in 2019. This high tech trade gap hit $132.37 billion – its third straight all-time high, and a 3.29 percent increase from the 2018 total ($4.22 billion). But without the $10.48 billion increase in the trade deficit for civilian aircraft (which are classified as an advanced technology product), the high tech trade gap would actually have narrowed slightly, and for the first time since 2016.

A classic 1960s ad sought to sell hairspray by claiming, “The closer he gets…the better you look!” From today’s standpoint, that looks kind of chauvinistic. But with a few word changes, it’s a pretty good description of the year in trade, 2019 for the United States, and for President Trump.

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ama years                      real GDP growth   real trade deficit growth       ratio 

10-11:                              1.55 percent               0.83 percent                 0.54:1

11-12:                              2.25 percent               0.01 percent                 0.04:1

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

13-14:                              2.53 percent              8.33 percent                 3.29:1

14-15:                              2.91 percent            25.01 percent                 8.59:1

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

Trump years

16-17:                             2.37 percent              8.43 percent                3.57:1

17-18:                             2.93 percent              8.26 percent               2.82:1

18-19:                             2.33 percent              3.72 percent               1.60:1

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

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

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

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

                       real trade deficit/GDP   real GDP   real trade deficit      ratio   

Obama years

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

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

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

2014:                   3.41 percent          2.53 percent      5.57 percent      2.20:1

2015:                   4.15 percent          2.91 percent    21.70 percent      7.46:1

2016:                   4.43 percent          1.64 percent      6.75 percent      4.12:1

Trump years

2017:                  4.69 percent          2.37 percent      5.87 percent      2.48:1

2018:                  4.94 percent          2.93 percent      5.33 percent      1.82:1

2019:                  5.00 percent          2.33 percent      1.21 percent      0.52:1

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

Obama years        real GDP       real Made in Washington deficit      ratio 

10-11:                1.55 percent                 11.92 percent                      7.69:1

11-12:                2.25 percent                 10.23 percent                      4.55:1

12-13:                1.84 percent                   6.15 percent                      3.34:1

13-14:                2.53 percent                 15.85 percent                      6.26:1

14-15:               2.91 percent                  22.70 percent                     7.80:1

15-16:               1.64 percent                    2.54 percent                     1.55:1

Trump years

16-17:              2.37 percent                    6.64 percent                     2.80:1

17-18:              2.93 percent                  13.15 percent                     4.49:1

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

*November-to-November

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

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

Making News: Talking China Trade Deal with Jersey Joe, John Batchelor…& More!

Tags

AlphaWeek.com, America First, Breitbart News Tonight, Breitbart.com, China, economic nationalism, energy, enforcement, Gordon G. Chang, IndustryToday.com, Jersey Joe, Joe Piscopo, John Carney, Making News, Middle East, Phase One, Populism, RealVision.com, tariffs, The Epoch Times, The Joe Piscopo Show, The John Batchelor Show, trade deal, trade deficit, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I was interviewed this morning on the new U.S.-China trade deal on “The Joe Piscopo Show” on New York City’s AM 970 The Answer radio station.  Sorry that I could only give limited advance notice, but the podcast is on-line already!  Special bonus:  Jersey Joe and I also dealt with the Major League Baseball cheating scandal, too!

In addition last night, I was back on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio program to discuss the so-called Phase One agreement with John and co-host Gordon G. Chang.  You can listen to the podcast here.

Tuesday night, I was interviewed on a wide range of foreign and domestic issues on “Breitbart News Tonight.”  Click on this link and scroll down till you see my January 14 segment.

The Breitbart.com folks were also kind enough to write up some portions of this segment in website items here and here.

On Tuesday, meanwhile, Breitbart‘s excellent economics and finance editor John Carney quoted me in his detailed analysis of the latest U.S. government report on consumer prices – which reveals whether the Trump trade wars have sparked any meaningful inflation.  You can read it at this link.  (Spoiler alert for everyone who hasn’t been paying attention to RealityChek‘s own coverage of this issue:  They haven’t.)

Meanwhile, The Epoch Times has quoted my views recently on energy security and what it means for America’s policy in the hopelessly dysfunctional Middle East, and on the progress made in reducing the U.S. the trade deficit.

On January 6, IndustryToday.com re-published – at this link – my recent blog post on the latest data undermining the claim that President Trump has betrayed his working class and middle class voters.  (Another spoiler alert:  These data indicate that he hasn’t.)

Finally, on January 2, the popular finance website AlphaWeek.com posted the video of my December RealVision.com interview on the virtues of an America First approach to U.S. foreign and trade policy – and whether Mr. Trump’s measures fit the bill.  Catch it here.

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