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

Tags

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

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

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

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

                                              old thru Nov       new thru Nov       thru Dec

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

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

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

machinery:                           +5.11 percent      +5.55 percent    +4.93 percent

automotive:                          -1.46 percent       -1.32 percent    +3.36 percent

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

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

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

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

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

overall manufacturing:                            +1.72 percent

aircraft engines and engine parts:           +5.42 percent

industrial heating equipment:                 +0.14 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts:         +2.21 percent

farm machinery and equipment:             +3.29 percent

ball bearings:                                           -0.17 percent

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

Advertisements

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Tariffs-Led Inflation Remains a Manufactured Crisis

Tags

China, inflation, metals, metals tariffs, producer prices, tariffs, Trade, trade war, wholesale, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Economy followers who are fans of facts have ample reason to be grateful that the partial federal government shutdown has left the Labor Department open. As a result, the Bureau of Labor statistics can keep churning out data showing that the next valid claim of tariff-led damage to the U.S. economy that’s supported by authoritative statistics will also be the first. And today’s producer price numbers (for December) are the latest case in point.

The Department’s producer price index (PPI) measures price changes at the wholesale level, and neither the results for products heavily affected by President Trump’s metals tariffs or by his tariffs on goods from China show any evidence of contributing to inflation that will at some point be passed on to consumers.

Let’s start with metals-using products supposedly vulnerable to the U.S. levies on imports of steel and aluminum, which began to be imposed in late March. As with the situation as of last month, steel itself continues to demonstrate strong pricing power on an annual basis, starting with a 7.4 percent increase in April that’s since soared to 18.5 percent in December.

Even so, on a monthly basis, steel prices have actually fallen on net since August (by 0.36 percent), and dropped by 0.63 percent on month in December. So its price momentum seems to be cooling significantly – and possibly at an accelerating rate.

Further, much weaker pricing power – and therefore inflation – can be seen in various goods that use lots of steel. On the one hand, the December figures still showed robust price increases in products like pumps, compressors, and related equipment; and mining machinery and equipment. Wholesale inflation was 4.1 percent in the former on month in December, and 8.5 percent in the latter. By contrast, in the super-category in which both products are found (“final demand goods”), yearly wholesale inflation was only 2.5 percent in December.

Switch over to “intermediate demand” goods and you find big annual price hikes in sectors like metal containers (6.5 percent), fabricated wire products (16.4 percent), and certain kinds of valves (six percent). Yearly December inflation in that super-category was three percent.

But as in steel itself, the latest monthly figures are generally much lower – e.g., since August, 1.57 percent cumulatively for pumps, compressors, and related equipment; -0.55 percent for metal containers; 0.12 percent for fabricated wire products; and 2.32 percent for the valves.

Mining equipment is a conspicuous exception: Its prices were up 6.21 percent from August through December. But it was a strange exception, since all of the increase took place from October to November.

And the tariff alarmists still need to account for all the steel-using goods where wholesale inflation has been weak for the entire year and looks to be going nowhere: machine tools; oil and gas field machinery; agricultural machinery; motor vehicles; motor vehicle parts; ships; railroad equipment.

It’s true that the markets for all these producer goods vary tremendously, as does their dependence on steel. But that’s the point: Tariffs are only one of many trends and developments that influence their prices.

As for aluminum, its pricing momentum has slowed considerably – from 11.9 percent on an annual basis in April, to 6.3 percent in December. And since August, aluminum wholesale prices are off by fully 3.20 percent.

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

Here are the PPI changes for some of the leading products found on the Trump administration’s initial China tariff list. They were imposed on July 6, so the numbers show the cumulative price changes since August. (Note: Because the administration’s Trump announcement used a different classification system than that used in the PPI reports, the below data don’t match up exactly with that tariff list. But the following goods are all at the least main parts of the items on the Trump list, or vice versa.)

aircraft engines and engine parts: 0.04 percent

industrial heating equipment: 1.15 percent

oil and gas drilling platform parts: 0.46 percent

farm machinery and equipment: 2.26 percent

paper-making machinery: -0.13 percent

ball bearings: 1.01 percent

electric generators: 1.85 percent

electricity transformers: 0.35 percent

medical, surgical, and personal aid devices: 0.33 percent

X-ray and electro-medical equipment: 0 percent

As with the metals-using products, some strong price increases are apparent. But so are some very weak increases, a flat-line, and a price drop. So it’s tough to argue that the tariffs have been make-or-break in the wholesale pricing sphere. I’ll keep tracking the China angle with unusual alacrity, though, since the number of tariff-ed imports expanded greatly later in 2018.

Lastly, there are the tariffs on large household laundry machines. Their retail prices keep increasing strongly, as shown in the latest (December) consumer price data – though not as strongly as in the immediate aftermath of the product-specific tariffs slapped on their imports in late January.

But at the wholesale level, inflation has been much weaker lately – a 0.84 percent monthly December increase for “household appliances” (the laundry equipment isn’t broken out), but only a 1.61 percent advance since August, and a comparatively meager 3.7 percent increase year-on-year. Call me a cynic, but it looks like consumers have been paying much more for these products this past year mainly because the retailers have been making a killing, not because of tariff hikes.

Making News: A New China Op-Ed & a National Radio China Podcast

Tags

China, foreign direct investment, Making News, The John Batchelor Show, The Washington Times, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to announce the publication of a new op-ed piece – an article in this morning’s Washington Times explaining why the best U.S. policy toward direct investment from China (i.e., Chinese buy-ins to U.S. companies and other hard, non-financial assets) is to keep it simple and ban it all.  Here’s the link.

In addition, the podcast is now on-line of Monday night’s interview on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show updating the U.S.-China trade conflict – with a special focus on manufacturing. Click here to access the segment on this fast-moving story.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight with a Trade Wars Update

Tags

China, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to be back on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show tonight to help John and co-host Gordon G. Chang analyze the latest developments in the U.S.-China trade conflict. With a U.S. negotiating team in Beijing right now to investigate the possibilities of a deal, it’s a segment you won’t want to miss.  And you can listen live on-line, at 9:45 PM EST, at this link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New U.S. Jobs Report Delivers (Another) Face Slap to Trump’s Trade Critics

Tags

China, durable goods, global supply chains, Jobs, manufacturing, metals, metals tariffs, metals-using industries, tariffs, trade war, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

My deepest sympathies to the nation’s tariff fear-mongers, who keep insisting that President Trump’s levies on imports have been decimating America’s domestic manufacturing sector. This morning’s Labor Department report on the U.S. employment situation in December reveals that they’re still as pathetically wrong as ever.

Let’s start, as usual, with the impact of the President’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which started to be imposed in April, and which allegedly have been hammering metals-using industries. This Trump decision is supposed to epitomize the folly of such protectionist policies in general, and metals tariffs in particular, since metals-using industries generate much more output than metals-producing indusries, and employ many more workers.

Yet has been the case since the onset of these levies, the data makes abundantly clear that the metals-using sectors generally have been outperforming not only the rest of manufacturing jobs-wise, but the private sector economy as a whole. Here are the numbers for April through the last three data months (keeping in mind that the November and December figures are both still preliminary):

                                                   thru October     thru November     thru December

entire private sector:                +0.99 percent      +1.13 percent      +1.37 percent

overall manufacturing:           + 0.99 percent      +1.20 percent      +1.45 percent

durable goods:                         +1.25 percent      +1.43 percent      +1.67 percent

fabricated metals products:     +1.33 percent      +1.30 percent      +1.75 percent

non-electrical machinery:       +1.66 percent      +1.90 percent       +2.20 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:  +0.73 percent      +0.58 percent      +0.77 percent

household appliances:             -1.25 percent       -1.41 percent        not available

aerospace products & parts:   +4.45 percent      +5.47 percent        not available

Notably, even in one major sector that’s been lagging – automotive – the pace of net new job creation has quickened a bit lately. And the industry that’s genuinely taken it on the employment chin – appliances – has been dealing both with a separate set of tariffs on large household laundry machines along with a major slump in the American housing sector.

The impact of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging China tariffs is tougher to identify, partly because they only began in July, and partly because Chinese inputs are found in so many manufacturing industries. But here are the data for sectors with extensive global supply chains that often pass through China:

                                                           July thru November     July thru December

entire private sector:                             +0.66 percent              +0.90 percent

overall manufacturing:                         +0.66 percent              +0.93 percent

chemicals:                                            +1.54 percent              +1.40 percent

non-electrical machinery:                    +0.66 percent              +0.96 percent

computer & electronics products:        +0.50 percent              +0.83 percent

automotive vehicles & parts:               +0.90 percent              +1.08 percent

With one exception – computer and electronics products – these globalized industries have outperformed, too. And even in that lagging sector, employment has been growing faster lately.

These results still don’t prove that President Trump was right in claiming that trade wars are “easy to win.” But they sure add to the evidence that, for the United States, they’re eminently winnable. And that the President’s critics are losing. 

Making News: New National Radio Podcast on U.S.-China Trade War Now On-Line

Tags

Gordon G. Chang, Making News, manufacturing, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show is now on-line.  Click here for a great discussion among John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me that updates the situation with the U.S.-China trade conflict.

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

Glad I Didn’t Say That! U.S. Automakers Debunk Their Own Tariff Fear-Mongering

Tags

automotive, China tariffs, FCA, Financial Times, General Motors, Glad I Didn't Say That!, metals tariffs, msn.com, Patti Waldmeir, tariffs, Trade, trade war

“The auto industry…fears that new tariffs, on top of those already enacted on Chinese-made vehicles and imported aluminum and steel, could have a major negative impact on the American new car market.”

–MSN.com, November 18, 2018

 

General Motors’ “head of US sales, said on Thursday: ‘We feel confident heading into 2019 because we have more major truck and crossover launches coming during the year and the US economy is strong.’”

–Financial Times, January 3, 2019

 

FCA’s head of US sales “also predicted a ‘solid’ 2019, attributing the company’s strength in 2018 to ‘the efforts we undertook to realign our production to give US consumers more Jeep vehicles and Ram pick-up trucks.’”

–Financial Times, January 3, 2019

 

(Sources “Hit hard by trade war, automakers hoping Trump will hold off on new round of tariffs,” Money, MSN.com, November 18, 2018, https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/hit-hard-by-trade-war-automakers-hoping-trump-will-hold-off-on-new-round-of-tariffs/ar-BBPOjRn & “US car sales defied predictions of a slowdown in 2018,” by Patti Waldmeir, Financial Times, January 3, 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/e538e316-0f52-11e9-a3aa-118c761d2745)

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight on China Trade Wars, a Twitter Milestone…& More!

Tags

Breitbart News Daily, China, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump, Twitter

Happy New Year one and all, and I’m pleased to announce that 2019 is scheduled to get off to a great start with a return to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show to provide an update on the U.S.-China trade conflict.  The segment is slated to begin at 10:30 PM EST, will also feature co-host Gordon G. Chang, and you can listen live on-line at this link.

As usual, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Speaking of podcasts, here’s one of a radio interview I did December 27 on Breitbart News Daily on tumult in the U.S. stock markets and the outlook for the U.S. economy.  Sorry to be so late with this one, but I think you’ll find it still timely.  Click on this link and scroll down a bit till you see my name.

Finally, I got some good news this morning: My Twitter following hit 4,000.  Since then, it’s dropped by 3, but the underlying trend remains strong.  If you like RealityChek, I’m confident that all of you not yet on board will enjoy it greatly.

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

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Atlantic’s Hatchet Job on Trump’s Trade Policy and Trade Negotiator

Tags

Chad Bown, China, globalization, James Bacchus, Matt Peterson, Merit Janow, multinational companies, Peterson Institute for International Economics, Robert Lighthizer, The Atlantic, Trade, trade war, Trump, U.S. Trade Representative, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

I wish I could say that, in the process of ringing out the old year, America is ringing out incompetent or willfully ignorant journalism about U.S. trade policy. But a looooong article just published by The Atlantic on U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer makes painfully clear that that point remains as far away as ever.

The article, by Atlantic Senior Editor Matt Peterson, would deserve quick dismissal simply due to one of its major themes: that Lighthizer, President Trump’s chief trade negotiator, takes a hard line on the issue in general, and on China in particular, because he’s long been in the pocket of the domestic steel industry as one of its principal trade lawyers.

This smear is especially rich because a trade policymaker lionized by Peterson as a strong opponent of such conflicts of interest and consequent paragon of policy virtue – another American trade lawyer named Merit Janow – followed her stint as a senior magistrate at the World Trade Organization (WTO) – by accepting a position as “a charter member of the International Advisory Council of China’s sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corporation or CIC.” That is, she jumped onto the payroll of the Chinese government.

But more fundamentally troubling about Peterson’s piece is its – sadly, standard – description of the WTO as an institution that defends and promotes the interests of the entire American economy. How so? By creating a U.S.-style court of law that would impartially mete out commercial justice but that could be used especially effectively by American diplomats highly skilled in working with such systems. One genuine contribution made by Peterson is reporting evidence that Lighthizer himself once apparently bought into this argument.

These views, however, completely ignore two related, alternative interpretations of the WTO’s creation that at deserve consideration at least because one of them is so regularly repeated by journalists and WTO supporters. That interpretation portrays the WTO as an arrangement that aimed primarily at restraining America’s ability to combat predatory foreign trade practices by enmeshing the United States in a simple majoritarian legal system in which all countries – including the vast majority of members who relied heavily on such mercantilism for their growth.

Chad Bown of the (pro-WTO) Peterson Institute for International Economics, one of the American media’s “go to” trade policy commentators made this point abundantly clear when he told The New York Times that the main foreign impetus for establishing the WTO was a determination to find ways of resisting America’s (successful) 1980s unilateral efforts to frustrate their trade predation and pry open their markets to U.S.-made goods.

Former WTO official (and U.S. Member of Congress) James Bacchus made a similar point earlier this year when he criticized Lighthizer (and other American economic nationalists) for their belief that the United States was better off under the pre-WTO world trade system.  Why?  Because it left the (democratically elected) U.S. government “free to go on the offence aggressively in trade by taking unilateral trade actions without any international legal constraint.”

The second, related alternative interpretation of the WTO’s creation focuses on the U.S. multinational corporations that dominated U.S. trade policymaking under Mr. Trump’s immediate predecessors: They strongly favored subjecting unilateral American power in trade diplomacy because their overseas operations – especially those geared toward supplying the American market – benefited immensely, often at the expense of domestic competitors, from many of the predatory foreign practices targeted by many American leaders who don’t shill for these offshoring interests. China’s longstanding beggar-its-neighbors currency policies have been only one example.

The Atlantic is rightly proud of its long history of publishing “iconic thinkers” and “covering ideas that matter.” Many more articles like Peterson’s, and it will also be known for hatchet jobs.

Im-Politic: Has a Major U.S. Economist Secretly Been in China’s Pocket?

Tags

China, donors, economists, globalization, Huawei, Im-Politic, Isaac Stone Fish, Jeffrey D. Sachs, national security, Project Syndicate, technology, telecommunications, think tanks, trade war, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Washington Post

I’ve always been skeptical of claims that money explains everything about where prominent folks stand on policy debates. Sure, money talks loudly, and that’s why, for example, I’ve so consistently reported on how leading U.S. think tanks are lavishly funded by corporate interests (e.g., here) and even by foreign governments (e,g, here) with huge stakes in matters on which they regularly comment, such as trade and globalization issues.

But I’ve believed that for the most part, their positions are also at least partly sincerely held – reflecting either an inability even to question what they’ve learned in school, or the power of group-think in their professional and social circles (inside the Washington, D.C. Beltway in particular these realms tend to overlap substantially), their honest convictions, and typically some combination of the above.

I still refuse automatically to write off analysts who disagree with me as simple donors’ mouthpieces, but a recent incident has reminded me that – in the words of a close long-time friend – when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.

The story begins with an article on the Project Syndicate website – a sort of digital global op-ed page (which, to be sure, overwhelmingly publishes writers with globalist/establishment viewpoints) – by economist Jeffrey D. Sachs.

Sachs is a world-renowned figure in his field, but as with many of his colleagues, seems to assume that mastery of conventional economic concepts translates into expertise on all other subjects. (Google “Krugman, Paul” for perhaps the leading example of this phenomenon.) So I wasn’t entirely surprised to see him writing on the recent American arrest, on sanctions-busting charges, of a senior executive from the Chinese telecommunications entity Huawei – even though he has no special credentials on China, or technology, or national security.

I was very surprised by the nature of Sachs’ attack on the U.S. action, which ran on December 11. Most criticisms of the arrest focused on whether it would escalate the U.S.-China trade war – whether because it signaled a more aggressive turn in Washington’s approach, or because it would trigger Chinese retaliation – or whether the United States ultimately could curb China’s technological development, or whether the American tech industry could continue excelling after a cutoff of its access to Chinese markets or parts and components.

But according to Sachs, the Huawei arrest mattered most because it showed that “The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today’s greatest threat to the international rule of law, and therefore to global peace.” That’s pretty out there given that Huawei’s largest shareholder is a Chinese telecommunications company owned outright by the Chinese state, that its close relationship with Beijing has caused governments the world over to limit its presence in their markets for national security reasons, and that the Chinese regime itself has been challenging international law, and in turn peace and security, in the South China Sea region.

Still, I was inclined to write off Sachs’ diatribe as yet another example of Trump Derangement Syndrome, or the outgrowth of idolatry of the globalization status quo fanatical enough to fuel (sincere) outrage at any development threatening to change it – e.g., President Trump’s decision to confront China’s trade predation.

As a result, I was inclined to dismiss as off-base the reaction of one of my Twitter followers to Sachs’ article: “I guess we know who is signing Jeffrey Sachs’ paycheck these days.”

So imagine my surprise when, on December 12, Washington Post columnist Isaac Stone Fish reported that Sachs had written the forward to a big report put out by Huawei in November.

Nothing necessarily improper there. Academics engage in such activities all the time. And if Sachs genuinely believes that an entity that clearly is an arm of the repressive Chinese government deserved “kudos” for “producing… a timely and clear roadmap to help governments, businesses and civil society [emphasis added] to create digital nations on the path to sustainable development,” well that’s his business.

What is massively improper has been Sachs’ reactions to Fish’s questions about Sachs’ relationship with Huawei in light of his glowing praise of the entity both in the report and in his Project Syndicate piece: “Did Huawei pay you for that [the forward]? If so, don’t you think you should disclose that?”

Rather than respond to Fish, Sachs stonewalled – in fact, going so far as to delete his Twitter account.

In the process, he not only made it difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has something to hide when it comes to Huawei. He’s also unavoidably created shadows over two respected organizations with which he’s been closely affiliated: Columbia University’s Earth Institute (which he headed between 2002 and 2016), and that Institute’s Center for Sustainable Development (which he heads now).

I’ve been looking for evidence of Huawei or other Chinese funding for these organizations, and haven’t found any yet. But that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been any (perhaps funneled through third parties?), and that it hasn’t colored their work. Because like I said, when seeking to understand political behavior, the most cynical explanation is rarely wrong.