(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Record U.S. Trade Gap – & Cause for Trade Optimism??

Tags

American Jobs Plan, Biden, Buy American, CCP Virus, Census Bureau, China, coronavirus, corporate taxes, COVID 19, Donald Trump, exports, goods trade deficit, green energy, imports, lockdowns, Made in Washington trade flows, Pacific Rim, reopening, semiconductor shortage, services trade, subsidies, supply chains, tariffs, tax policy, taxes, Trade, trade deficit, vaccines, West Coast ports, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Despite the overall U.S. trade deficit hitting an all-time monthly high in February, the new trade figures released by the Census Bureau this morning contained lots of encouraging news – including for fans of the Trump tariffs on China and on aluminum and steel (like me). I’m wary of running or continuing a victory lap, because there’s still too much short- and perhaps longer term economic noise surely masking the underlying trends. But the case for trade optimism and its possible policy causes deserves attention.

As for that economic noise, it comes of course not only from the ongoing stop/start CCP Virus- and lockdowns-/reopenings/vaccinations-related distortions of all economic data, but from the harsh winter weather that depressed February economic activity in key areas of the country like Texas; the global shortage of semiconductors that’s impacting output throughout the manufacturing sector (and that’s due in part to the pandemic); and the big backups at the West Coast ports that are greatly slowing the unloading of container ships containing lots of imports from China and the rest of Asia.

As for the data, the combined goods and services trade shortfall of $71.08 billion in February surpassed the previous record, November’s $69.04 billion, by 2.95 percent, and represented a 4.80 percent increase over January’s downwardly revised level of $67.82 billion.

The increase resulted both from a rise in the goods trade gap (of 3.27 percent, to its own record of $88.01 billion) and a shrinkage of the services surplus (of 2.93 percent, to $16.93 billion – the smallest since August, 2012’s $17.08 billion).

Trade flows not setting records, though, notably included any of the imports categories – despite numerous reports of the rapidly rebounding U.S. economy sucking in massive amounts of products (though not services, which have suffered an outsized CCP Virus blow) from abroad.

For example, total merchandise imports actually fell on month in February – by 0.89 percent, to $221.14 billion, from January’s record total of $221.12 billion. Still, the February figure remains in second place historically speaking.

Non-oil goods imports inched up by 0.38 percent sequentially in February – from $85.36 billion to $85.68 billion. But they still fell short of the November record of $86.40 billion. As known by RealityChek regulars, this trade category sheds the most light on the impact on trade flows of trade policy decisions, like tariff changes and trade agreements. (Hence I call the resulting shortfall the Made in Washington trade deficit.) But despite the lofty level, they’re actually down on net since November. Could it be those West Coast ports snags or the harsh winter storms of February or semiconductor-specific problems? Maybe.

The evidence for those propositions? U.S. goods imports from Pacific Rim countries – which are serviced by the West Coast ports – did sink by 11.81 percent on month in February. That’s a much faster rate than the 1.54 percent decrease in overall non-oil goods imports (a close proxy).

But goods imports from China dropped by a greater 13 percent even, which points to some Trump tariff effect as well. In fact, the $34.03 billion worth of February goods imports from China was the lowest monthly number since pandemicky last April. And February’s $24.62 billion bilateral merchandise trade deficit with China was 6.22 percent narrower than the January figure, and the smallest such total since April, too.

America’s goods deficit from Pacific Rim countries in total fell slightly faster than the gap with China (6.84 percent). China’s economy and its exports, however, are supposed to be recovering at world-and region-beating rates, so if that’s the case, it appears that the Trump trade curbs are preventing that rebound from taking place at America’s expense.

U.S. manufacturing trade numbers were encouraging, too, though again, the impact of tariffs as opposed to that of the virus distortions or the February weather or the ports issues or the semiconductor shortage or some combination thereof  is difficult to determine. But industry’s trade shortfall did tumble by 10.53 percent in February, from January’s $99.79 billion to $89.29 billion. That figure also was manufacturing’s lowest since June, 2020’s $89.16 billion and the 10.52 percent decrease was the by far the biggest in percentage terms since November, 2019’s 12.70 percent.

February manufacturing exports declined by 2.64 percent sequentially, from $81.66 billion to $79.51 billion. But the much greater volume of manufacturing imports sank by 6.98 percent, from $182.46 billion to $168.79 billion.

The China and manufacturing numbers could certainly change – and boost these U.S. trade gaps and the overall trade deficit – as Americans begin to spend their latest round of stimulus checks, as the U.S. recovery continues, and as the West Coast ports and semiconductor issues clear up. 

But especially due to those Chinese exports, this worsening of the U.S. trade picture was reported late last year. And the official U.S. trade figures show that such a surge simply never took place. Moreover, if executed properly, President Biden’s Buy American plans for federal government procurement and support for strengthening critical domestic supply chains could boost American manufacturing and other goods output without increasing imports. His budget requests for major subsidies for key U.S.-based manufacturing operations could help brighten the trade picture, too. Mr. Biden has also decided for now to retain the Trump trade curbs. And P.S. – those clogged West Coast ports hamper American exports as well.    

In addition, trade problems could reappear at some point due to the President’s proposed green energy mandates and corporate tax increases that would inevitably hike the relative cost of producing in the United States. But right now, it looks like due to ongoing and possibly upcoming economic nationalist American policies, the burden of proof is on the U.S. trade pessimists. And that’s quite a switch.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Biden’s Trade Policies are Looking Trump-ier Than Ever

Tags

America First, arbitrage, Biden, China, economic nationalism, environmental standards, global minimum tax, globalism, globalization, infrastructure, Jake Sullivan, Janet Yellen, labor rights, race to the bottom, subsidies, tariffs, tax policy, taxes, Trade, trade Deals, trade wars, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As the author of a book titled The Race to the Bottom, you can imagine how excited I was to learn that the main rationale of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s new proposal for a global minimum tax on corporations is to prevent, or bring to an end, a…race to the bottom.

But this idea also raises a question with profound implications for U.S. trade and broader globalization policies: Why stop at tax policy? And it’s made all the more intriguing because (a) the Biden administration for which Yellen surprisingly seems aware that there’s no good reason to do so even though (b) the trade policy approach that could consequently emerge looks awfully Trump-y.

After all, the minimum tax idea reflects a determination to prevent companies from engaging in what’s known as arbitrage in this area. It’s like arbitrage in any situation – pitting providers and producers that boast little leverage into competition with one another to sell their goods and services at the lowest possible price, and usually triggering a series of ever more cut-rate offers.

These kinds of interactions differ from ordinary price competition because, as mentioned above, the buyer usually holds much more power than the seller. So the results are too often determined by considerations of raw power, not the kinds of overall value considerations that explain why market forces have been so successful throughout history.

When the arbitrage concerns policy, the results can be much more disturbing. It’s true that the ability of large corporations to seek the most favorable operating environments available can incentivize countries to substitute smart policies for dumb in fields such as regulation and of course taxation. But it’s also true, as my book and so many other studies have documented, that policy arbitrage can force countries to seek business with promises and proposals that can turn out to be harmful by any reasonable definition.

Some of the most obvious examples are regulations so meaningless that they permit inhumane working conditions to flourish and pollution to mount, and encourage tax rates to fall below levels needed to pay for public services responsibly. Not coincidentally, Yellen made clear that the latter is a major concern of hers. And the Biden administration says it will intensify enforcement of provisions in recent U.S. trade deals aimed at protecting workers and the environment – and make sure that any new agreements contain the same. I’ve been skeptical that many of these provisions can be enforced adequately (see, e.g., here), but that’s a separate issue. For now, the important point is that such arbitrage, and the lopsided trade flows and huge deficits they’ve generated, harm U.S.-based producers and their employees, too.

But as my book and many other studies have also documented, safety and environmental arbitrage aren’t the only instances of such corporate practices by a long shot. Businesses also hop around the world seeking currency arbitrage (in order to move jobs and production to countries that keep the value of their currencies artificially low, thereby giving goods and services turned out in these countries equally artificial, non-market-related advantages over the competition). Ditto for government subsidies – which also influence location decisions for reasons having nothing to do with free markets, let alone free trade. The victims of these versions of policy arbitrage, moreover, have been overwhelmingly American.

The Biden administration is unmistakably alert to currency and subsidy arbitrage. Indeed a major element of its infrastructure plan is providing massive support for the U.S. industry in general, and to specific sectors like semiconductors to lure jobs and production back home and keep it there. Revealingly, though, it’s decided for the time being to keep in place former President Trump’s steep, sweeping tariffs on China, and on steel and aluminum.

So it looks like the President has resolved to level these playing fields by cutting off corporate policy arbitrage opportunities of all types with a wide range of tools. And here’s where the outcome could start looking quintessentially Trump-y and America First-y. For it logically implies that the United States shouldn’t trade much – and even at all – with countries whose systems and policy priorities can’t promote results favorable to Americans.

Still skeptical? Mr. Biden and his leading advisers have also taken to talking about making sure that “Every action we take in our conduct abroad, we must take with American working families in mind.” More specifically, the President’s White House national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, wrote pointedly during the campaign that U.S. leaders

“must move beyond the received wisdom that every trade deal is a good trade deal and that more trade is always the answer. The details matter. Whatever one thinks of the TPP [the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal], the national security community backed it unquestioningly without probing its actual contents. U.S. trade policy has suffered too many mistakes over the years to accept pro-deal arguments at face value.”

He even went so far as to note that “the idea that trade will necessarily make both parties better off so long as any losers could in principle be compensated is coming under well-deserved pressure within the field of economics.”

But no one should be confident that economic nationalism will ultimately triumph in Biden administration counsels. There’s no doubt that the U.S. allies that the President constantly touts as the keys to American foreign policy success find these views to be complete anathema. And since Yellen will surely turn out to be Mr. Biden’s most influential economic adviser, it’s crucial to mention that her recent speech several times repeated all the standard tropes mouthed for decades by globalization cheerleaders about U.S. prosperity depending totally on prosperity everywhere else in the world.

Whether she’s right or wrong (here I presented many reasons for concluding the latter), that’s clearly a recipe for returning trade policy back to its pre-Trump days – including the long-time willingness of Washington to accept what it described as short-term sacrifices (which of course fell most heavily on the nation’s working class) in order to build and maintain prosperity abroad that would benefit Americans eventually, but never seemed to pan out domestically.

Nor is Yellen the only potential powerful opponent of less doctrinaire, more populist Biden trade policies. Never, ever forget that Wall Street and Silicon Valley were major contributors to the President’s campaign coffers. Two greater American enthusiasts for pre-Trump trade policies you couldn’t possibly find.

And yet, here we are, more than two months into the Biden presidency, and key pieces of a Trump-y trade policy both in word and deed keep appearing.  No one’s more surprised than I am (see, e.g., here).  But as so often observed, it took a lifelong anti-communist hardliner like former President Richard M. Nixon to engineer America’s diplomatic opening to Mao-ist China. And it took super hard-line Zionist Menachem Begin, Israel’s former Prime Minister, to sign a piece treaty with long-time enemy Egypt. So maybe it’s not so outlandish to suppose that a died-in-the-wool globalist like Joe Biden will be the President establishing America First and economic nationalism as the nation’s new normals in trade and globalization policy.  

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: March U.S. Manufacturing Job Gains Lagged – For a Good Reason

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, American Jobs Plan, automotive, Biden, Build Back Better, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Donald Trump, Employment, fabricated metal products, Jobs, Labor Department, lockdowns, machinery, manufacturing, non-farm jobs, pharmaceuticals, PPE, recession, recovery, regulation, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, tariffs, taxes, Trade, travel services, vaccines, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s figures from the Labor Department show that U.S. domestic manufacturing was a bit of a jobs creation laggard in March – and that was good news. The reason? The employment gains for the rest of the economy were so enormous.

This latest monthly U.S. jobs report showed that non-farm payrolls (the definition of the U.S. jobs universe used by the Labor Department, which tracks these data), rose by 0.64 percent in March – to 144.210 million. Job-creation in the private sector advanced at a virtually identical rate.

Payrolls in manufacturing were up by a lower 0.43 percent – to 12.284 million. But they still increased by 53,000 – their best performance since September’s 55,000. It’s also possible that hiring in the automotive sector was held down by a global shortage of semiconductors – which has led to production cutbacks and even some layoffs.

The only disappointment in the new manufacturing jobs numbers concerned revisions – which were mostly negative. February’s initially reported 21,000 net employment gain is now estimated at 18,000. January’s 14,000 job loss (already downgraded from an initially judged 10,000) is now pegged at a still greater 18,000. But December’s improvement was upwardly revised again – from 34,000 to 35,000.

As a result, manufacturing has now regained 63.83 percent (870,000) of the 1.363 million jobs the sector shed during the peak CCP Virus lockdowns period of last March and April. That’s fewer relatively speaking than the recovery in private sector employment – 66.88 percent (14.172 million) of the 21.191 million jobs it lost during that period.

But because of continuing weakness in the public sector – which has recovered just 66.42 percent of its 22.362 million job loss last spring – manufacturing’s payrolls’ rebound is still ahead of the entire economy’s. In fact, manufacturing jobs now account for a higher (8.52 percent) of total non-farm employment than during the last full pre-pandemic data month (8.39 percent in February, 2020).

The biggest manufacturing jobs winners in March? Far and away the champ was the big fabricated metals products industry, which expanded employment by 13,700 – more than a quarter of the manufacturing total. Next came two smallish sectors – miscellaneous non-durable goods and printing and related support activities (up 7,400 and 5,900, respectively). Encouragingly, jobs increased by 3,500 in the big machinery sector – whose products are used throughout not only the rest of manufacturing but the entire economy.

The worst performers were transportation equipment – whose 3,000 lost March jobs included 1,000 in the automotive sector, which has been forced into production cutbacks and some layoffs due to the global semiconductor shortage – and furniture (down 1,300).

Unfortunately, these latest figures indicate that employment in many CCP Virus-fighting goods continues to lag. To be sure, their payrolls seem to be up from the last pre-pandemic levels whereas overall manufacturing jobs are down (by 4.02 percent). But given the nature of the emergency, and the shortages it revealed, it’s surprising they’re not higher still.

The relevant numbers only go through February, and in the broad pharmaceuticals sector, employment rose by 1,600 sequentially. And January’s initially reported 700 job loss has been upgraded to a decrease of only 100. But the sector’s payrolls have grown by a mere 2.60 percent since that last pre-pandemic month of February, 2020.

The performance of the pharmaceuticals subsector containing vaccines was considerably better. February payrolls expanded by 1,300 sequentially, and January’s gains are now estimated at 500, not 100. As a result, this vaccine-related sector’s employment levels are now 6.23 percent higher than in February, 2020.

The story, however, has been more discouraging lately in the manufacturing category containing personal healthcare-related protection devices (PPE) like facemasks, gloves, and medical gowns. Payrolls were flat on month in February, and the initially reported January job loss of 800 was only upgraded to a decline of 700. Still, payrolls in this sector have climbed by 7.98 percent since February, 2020.

Interestingly, despite the rebounding orders for Boeing’s popular but previously grounded 737 Max jetliner, the recovery of national and global travel, and the resumption of deliveries of its also-troubled 787 Dreamliner, none of these positive developments has shown up in the aerospace jobs numbers.

For example, aircraft employment in February (also the latest available figures) grew by only 1,000 on month and not only remains down 10.66 percent on year, but substantially lower than all of last year’s safety crisis- and the worst of the CCP Virus-plagued months. Similar trends hold for aircraft engines and engine parts, and non-engine aircraft parts.

The outlook for domestic manufacturing job creation still seem bright, as vaccinations are being administered rapidly, reopenings are spreading, igniting renewed overall economic activity, Boeing does seem to be emerging from its safety and manufacturing-related troubles, and the high, sweeping Trump tariffs keep pricing many Chinese goods out of the U.S. market, thereby creating new opportunities for American producers.

But that global semiconductor shortage, which will eventually affect much more than automotive output, may not end until late next year. It’s tough to know the overall impact of the Biden administration’s American Jobs Plan and other Build Back Better virus recovery proposals on the one hand, and the tax increases proposed to pay for them on the other, as well as the new regulations that will be involved – assuming even that they pass Congress reasonably intact. And vaccines production won’t be booming forever.

So no one concerned about domestic manufacturing’s health and prospects has any excuse not to peruse carefully all the industry-related data and news that are in store in the weeks and months ahead.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why the U.S. Still Holds the Winning Economic Cards Versus China

Tags

Biden, CCP, China, Chinese Communist Party, CNBC.com, consumers, consumption, demographics, Donald Trump, export-led growth, gross domestic product, IMF, International Monetary Fund, per capita GDP, population, technology, Trade, trade wars, workforce, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since there seems to be no end in sight to the rise in U.S.-China tensions, it’s especially interesting that two analyses of the Chinese economy and its future that challenge some widely held views on the subject have just appeared. Also noteworthy: They matter greatly for America’s perceived prospects for success, and one of them comes from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) itself.

More important still:  When you put them both together, the implications look positively startling – and encouraging – for America’s prospects in its economic and technological struggle with the People’s Republic.

The first apparently contrarian information comes from the International Monetary Fund in the form of this chart.

It shows recent and projected trends in U.S. and Chinese gross domestic product (GDP) per capita – that is, how much economic output each country turns out adjusted for population. This statistic is a valuable gauge of economic power and affluence because it reveals which national economies (or the economies of any other political unit) are a certain size simply because their populations are a certain size (big or small), and which economies are doing a particularly good or bad job generating goods and services given how many people are doing the producing.

For example: Let’s say you have one economy with a population of 100 and one with a population of 10,000, and the latter generates twice as much economic output than the former. The more populous country would have the larger economy in absolute terms, but its performance wouldn’t be seen as especially impressive because it took so many people to achieve this result – and indeed orders of magnitude more people than the smaller population economy.

Moreover, the latter economy would have much less wealth to distribute among its own people than the former, and therefore each of its citizens would be a good deal poorer than their counterparts in the smaller economy all else being equal.

But let’s not dismiss the bigger economy’s record altogether. For if the two ever fought a war – all else equal again – the bigger economy would have much more in the way of resources to build and equip a military, and keep it fighting, than the smaller.

Throughout modern history, the U.S. economy has greatly exceeded China’s by both measures, but because of the amazing progress made in recent decades by the People’s Republic and a slowdown in U.S. growth, China has been able to close the gap in terms of the size of the two economies. In fact, many forecasters (as made clear in the CNBC.com post containing the chart), believe that the Chinese will catch up before too long. As indicated above, the implications are sobering for Americans if the two countries come to blows, and by extension for any diplomatic jockeying they engage in – for relative military power always casts a political shadow.

China’s overall catch up has been so fast that you might think that the per capita GDP gap that’s been so large because China’s population has been so much bigger than America’s might start narrowing, too. But the chart makes clear that this hasn’t been the case at all. Indeed, the gap has continued to widen, and is projected to keep widening at least for the next four years.

And this finding and prediction suggests that the unquestionable surge in living standards that China has been able to foster due to its rapid growth – which has led so many U.S. and other non-Chinese businesses to pin their future hopes largely on selling to this huge and supposedly ever-burgeoning market – won’t even come close to American living standards for many years. So if the chart is right, the purchasing power growth of the typical Chinese will stall out at pretty low levels and disappoint many of these corporate hopes.

As a result, fears that a thorough “decoupling” of the two economies resulting mainly from U.S. concerns about over-dependence on an increasingly hostile country will kneecap many U.S.-based businesses and possibly the entire American economy could be seriously overblown, at least longer term. For if the chart is right, these expectations will be revealed as unrealistic no matter what course Washington follows – and even if China displayed any willingness (which it hasn’t) to permit foreign businesses to make any more inroads into its economy than are absolutely necessary.  (See here for the latest – and an unsually explicit – official Chinese designation of “complete” economic self-reliance as a goal.)  

All of which brings us to the second contrarian take on China that’s been expressed recently – and by the Communist Party. It’s a finding from the Deputy Director of a party-run research institute that the country’s “Consumption has already past the phase of rapid increase and will only rise slowly in the future.” And his opinion deserves big-time credibility because he clearly believed that he could express such a downbeat view without getting his head chopped off, or being sent for a few decades to a reeducation camp, or risking punishment for any immediate family and relatives.

In addition, however, Xu cited two specific, interlocking reasons for this judgement: an aging population and a shrinking workforce.  And although he seemingly didn’t mention this, if China will need to temper its plans to generate more economic growth through its own domestic consumption, it will need not only to rely more on the kinds of infrastructure investment he did cite.  It will also need to keep relying heavily on exports – which should ensure that the United States will retain plenty of leverage over the People’s Republic with its tariffs as long as the Biden administration decides to leave them in place. 

None of this means that former President Trump was right in claiming that trade wars are “easy to win,” or that maintaining satisfactory technological superiority will be a piece of cake, either, or that generally the United States can stop worrying so much about China threats on these scores.  But it does mean that if American leaders have the will to prevail – and to advance and safeguard U.S. interests adequately – they’ll have plenty of wallet to use.                                    

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New U.S. Manufacturing Data Bolster Case for Keeping Trump’s Tariffs

Tags

CCP Virus, China, China tariffs, consumer electronics, coronavirus, COVID 19, Donald Trump, exports, GDP-by-industry, gross domestic product, imports, manufacturing, Port of Los Angeles, recession, recovery, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, value added, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

As known by RealityChek regulars, throughout the CCP Virus period, I’ve been writing about how resilient the American domestic manufacturing industry has been, and how a good chunk of the credit should go to the Trump era tariffs. I’ve argued that they’ve rendered lots of imports – especially from China – much less price competitive, and created new opportunities for U.S.-based industry to sell to American customers.

With the release last Friday of the U.S. government’s latest “GDP (Gross Domestic Product) by Industry” data, this case looks ever more convincing.

The new figures bring the story up to the end of last year, and the key numbers entail the production and the trade deficit figures for the second quarter of 2020 (the first full quarter when the virus and related lockdowns and other mandated and voluntary economic activity curbs impacted economic data) and for the fourth quarter (the most recent numbers from this quarterly data set).

These new figures show that, during that period, according to an output measure called “value added” (a favorite of economists, because it seeks to eliminate the double-counting that inevitably results from including in manufacturing production levels both final products and all the parts, components, and materials that go into those products), manufacturing production increased by 14.32 percent. (This figure does not account for inflation’s effects, because the U.S. government doesn’t publish detailed inflation-adjusted data for the trade statistics we’ll also be examining.)

The comparable growth figure for the whole U.S. economy between the second and fourth quarter? Just 10.12 percent.

It’s true that the trade deficits for manufacturing and the whole economy rose strongly as well during this period. But manufacturing outperformed here as well, as its shortfall climbed by 24 percent, versus 24.46 percent for all U.S. goods and services industries combined.

That’s a tiny edge, of course, but any edge at all is pretty remarkable, especially given the massive pandemic-era popularity of the consumer electronics products sold so massively to Americans by China, and that most of these goods escaped the Trump levies. In this vein, it’s revealing that net imports of laptops, cell phones, and the like represented fully 22.07 percent of the second-to-fourth quarter manufacturing trade deficit’s worsening.

And even so, during this period, the manufacturing-dominated China goods trade shortfall increased by just 13.53 percent – a clear testament to the Trump tariffs.

It’s important to remember that many major U.S. services industries have taken outsized pandemic- and lockdowns etc-related hits because their business models depend on personal contact. But interestingly, between the first and second quarters, manufacturing output fell faster than total GDP – by 12.47 percent versus 9.47 percent on an annualized basis versus 9.47 percent. So industry had an unusually deeper hole to climb out of. And despite this challenge, whereas total U.S. current dollar output in the fourth quarter was still a bit (0.31 percent) lower than in the first quarter (the final full pre-CCP Virus-affected quarter), manufacturing value-added was fractionally higher.

There’s still a possible fly in the ointment – and a big one. Due to equipment and labor shortages, since late November there’s been there’s a big, growing backup in unloading ships laden with Asian imports at the Port of Los Angeles – a prime gateway for such commerce. And on a monthly basis, since November (and through January), U.S. goods imports from China are down 14.43 percent.

But underscoring the tariffs’ effects all the same: Goods imports from Vietnam, which is supposed to be a major winner from the U.S.-China trade conflict, dipped by just 3.93 percent during this period. And many Vietnamese products enter the United States through Los Angeles, too.

The manufacturing trade deficit remains way too high, and manufacturing’s value-added growth slowed dramatically last year – from an its all-time high of 13.4 percent between the second and third quarters to a mere 0.80 percent between the third and fourth.

But as the entire U.S. economy recovers from the pandemic due to vaccinations and the approach of herd immunity, as the lockdowns and consumer caution ebb, as more immense government stimulus kicks in, as aerospace giant (and traditional trade surplus star) Boeing recovers from its safety woes, as vaccine production booms, and as the Biden administration continues to keep the Trump tariffs in place, unless Washington makes some big policy mistakes, it seems tough at best to be a U.S. manufacturing pessimist these days.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Real U.S. 2020 Trade Deficit Remained a Record – & Virus-Distorted

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, exports, GDP, global financial crisis, goods trade, Great Recession, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, real GDP, real trade deficit, recession, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The final (for now) official report on U.S. economic growth in the fourth quarter of last year and therefore for the full year contained modestly good news both in terms of the entire economy’s performance and its trade flows, but doesn change the big picture of major pandemic-related setbacks and distortions, and the latter likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Starting at 30,000 feet, the new data show that in inflation-adjusted terms (those most closely watched), America’s gross domestic product (GDP – or the total of goods and services it produces) shrank by 3.49 percent in 2020, a bit better than the 3.50 percent decline reported last month. Real growth received a boost from a fourth quarter during which real GDP expanded sequentially by 4.23 percent at an annual rate, not the (already upwardly revised) 4.03 percent previously estimated.

Given the record nosedive last spring produced by the CCP Virus and related mandated and voluntary curbs on economic activity, and even given the strong (in fact, sequential, record) rebound in the third quarter, such growth isn’t overly impressive. But presumably the rate will accelerate as vaccination spreads, herd immunity finally arrives, lockdowns are lifted (hopefully for good), and consumer regain confidence about in-person services like dining and traveling.

All the same, 2020’s still ranks as the worst U.S. economic downturn since 1946, when after-inflation GDP tumble by 11.60 percent as the nation transitioned from a war-time to a peacetime footing. Last year’s recession was also worse than the real GDP drop of 2009 (2.53 percent), during the Great Recession triggered by the global financial crisis.

As for the constant dollar total trade deficit, it’s now pegged at $926 billion, up slightly from last month’s reported $925.8 billion, but better than the $926.3 billion estimated in the first read on fourth quarter and 2020 GDP. The annual increase was only 0.92 percent, and as a share of the total economy (5.03 percent), it remained well below the all-time high of 5.95 percent (which came at the height of the bubble decade, in 2005), the deficit’s absolute and relative levels are still remarkable given the economy’s contraction – which normally results in a trade deficit decrease. At the same time, as will be discussed below, the 2020 recession was unusual in most respects.

The trade highlights of this morning’s GDP report confirmed once again that the service sector has suffered the greatest pandemic period hit both domestically and internationally. Indeed, during 2020, the longstanding after-inflation American goods trade deficit dipped by 0.71 percent (from $1.1409 trillion to $1.1328 trillion) while the equally longstanding services surplus sank by eleven percent (from $224.5 billion to $199.8 billion).

The new GDP report upgraded America’s total price-adjusted export performance in 2020, estimating their decline to be 12.95 percent, not the previously judged 12.97 percent. But the decrease is still the worst since 1958’s 13.49 percent plunge, and the $2.2169 trillion level remains the lowest since 2012’s $2.1930 trillion.

Real goods exports in 2020 slid by 9.46 percent in today’s GDP report – a little better than the 9.48 percent calculated last month. But as with total exports, these levels still represented multi-year lows in terms of the magnitude of the decline (the fastest since Great Recession-y 2009) and the absolute amount ($1.6138 trillion, the lowest since 2013). As last months real GDP post reminded, though, goods and services trade figures began to be reported separately by the Commerce Department only since 2002.

The deterioration in real services exports was, again, much more dramatic, and faster than estimated in last month’s GDP figures. They plummeted by 19.26 percent on-year, not the 19.16 percent previously reported, and a record by a long shot. And at $620.5 billion, their yearly total is the lowest since 2010.

Total constant dollar U.S. imports, however, seem to have fallen sligthly more slowly last year (9.27 percent) than previously judged (an already downgraded 9.28 percent). Yet this decrease also remained the fastest since 2009, and the $3.1429 trillion level the lowest since 2015.

Consistent with the above results, the inflation-adjusted goods imports fall-off in 2020 was much less than the overall decline. Interestingly, the new 6.05 percent annual decline reported this morning was notably lower than the 5.45 percent decrease reported last month. It, too, however, was a multi-year worst (since recession-y 2009) and the new $2.7466 trillion level is the lowest since 2016.

The annual after-inflation services imports drop in 2020 reported today was unchanged, at a record 22.54 percent, and the same $420.7 billion level was the weakest since 2009.

On a quarter-to-quarter basis, the real trade deficit registered modest improvement, too. Previously pegged at a quarterly record $1.1230 trillion on an annual basis, it’s now estimated at $1.1220 trillion (still an all-time high), and the sequential increase downgraded from 10.20 percent to 10.11 percent.

Two other findings of note: Although the increase in the annual constant dollar total trade deficit reached an all-time high last year, its effect on economic performance was relatively slight. The trade gap’s widening accounted for 0.14 percentage points of that 3.49 percent annual real GDP drop. Proportionately, that’s less damage than was inflicted in 2019, when the higher trade deficit cut 0.18 percentage points from the 2.16 percent overall growth rate.

On a quarterly basis, though, the trade bite was much deeper, as the price-adjusted total deficit’s increase subtracted 1.53 percentage points from the 4.23 percent sequential inflation-adjusted annualized GDP increase. But not even this blow was the biggest ever relatively speaking – or even close. (The all-time worst such performance came in the second quarter of 1952, when 0.85 percent after-inflation annualized growth would have been 2.23 percentage points higher if not for the sequential increase in the trade deficit.)

Making News: A New Piece on the U.S.-China Meeting, an Upcoming Radio Interview…& More!

Tags

Alaska, Biden administration, China, Eamonn Fingleton, Making News, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, The American Conservative, The National Interest, Trade, Trade Deficits

I’m pleased to announce that my latest article for an outside publication: a piece for The National Interest on the outcome of last week’s U.S.-China meeting in Alaska. Click here for an analysis that follows up my assessment of the session’s first day, and explains why Presiden Biden’s emissaries undermined America’s position vis-a-vis the People’s Republic.

Special background tidbit: My suggested headline was “Half-Baked in Alaska.” But media outlets themselves typically claim the final word on titles, and rightly so, since marketing considerations are involved. But I’d be curious whether RealityChek readers prefer The National Interest‘s choice or mine.

In addition, I’m scheduled to appear today on Moe Ansari’s nationally syndicated “Market Wrap” radio program to discuss the Alaska meeting and its implications yet further. The segment is likely to air at about 8:30 PM EST, and you can listen live at this link. As usual, if you’re not able to tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Finally, it was great to be quoted in veteran British economic journalist Eamonn Fingleton in his latest article for The American Conservative. Click here for an informative treatment of why America’s continuing, towering trade deficits matter decisively.

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

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Biden’s Aides Show How Not to Deal with China

Tags

Alaska, Antony J. Blinken, Asia-Pacific, Barack Obama, Biden, China, Donald Trump, global norms, globalism, Hong Kong, human rights, Indo-Pacific, international law, Jake Sullivan, liberal global order, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Reinhold Niebuhr, sanctions, Serenity Prayer, South China Sea, Taiwan, tariffs, tech, Trade, Uighurs, United Nations, Yang Jiechi

You knew (at least I did) that America’s top foreign policy officials were going to step in it when they led off their Alaska meeting yesterday with Chinese counterparts by describing U.S. policy toward the People’s Republic as first and foremost a globalist exercise in strengthening “the rules-based international order” rather than protecting and advancing Americas’ own specific national interests.

This emphasis on the part of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan simultaneously made clear that they had no clue on how to communicate effectively to the Chinese or about China’s own aims, and – as was worrisomely true for the Obama administration in which both served – unwittingly conveyed to Beijing that they were more concerned about dreaming up utopian global arrangements than about dealing with the United States’ own most pressing concerns in the here and now.

It’s true that, in his opening remarks at the public portion of yesterday’s event that Blinken initially refered to advancing “the interests of the United States.” But his focus didn’t stay there for long. He immediately pivoted to contending:

“That system is not an abstraction. It helps countries resolve differences peacefully, coordinate multilateral efforts effectively and participate in global commerce with the assurance that everyone is following the same rules. The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winners take all, and that would be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us. Today, we’ll have an opportunity to discuss key priorities, both domestic and global, so that China can better understand our administration’s intentions and approach.”

Where, however, has been the evidence over…decades that China views the contemporary world as one in which peaceful resolution of differences is standard operating procedure, much less desirable? That multilateral efforts are worth coordinating effectively? That might shouldn’t make right and that China shouldn’t “take all” whenever it can?

Even more important, where is the evidence that China views what globalists like Blinken view as a system to be legitimate in the first place? Indeed, Yang Jiechi, who in real terms outranks China’s foreign minister as the country’s real foreign affairs czar, countered just a few minutes later by dismissing Blinken’s “so-called rules-based international order” as a selfish concoction of “a small number of countries.” He specifically attacked it for enabling the United States in particular to “excercise long-arm jurisdiction and suppression” and “overstretch the national security through the use of force or financial hegemony….”

Shortly afterwards, he added, “I don’t think the overwhelming majority of countries in the world would recognize…that the rules made by a small number of people would serve as the basis for the international order.”

Yang touted as a superior alternative “the United Nations-centered international system and the international order underpinned by international law.” But of course, even if you swallow this Chinese line (and you shouldn’t), it’s been precisely that system’s universality, and resulting need to pretend the existence of an equally universal consensus on acceptable behavior and good faith on the part of all members, that’s resulted in its general uselessness.

Meanwhile, surely striking Beijing as both cynical and utterly hollow were Blinken’s efforts to justify U.S. criticisms of China’s human rights abuses as threats to “the rules-based order that maintains global stability. That’s why they’re not merely internal matters and why we feel an obligation to raise these issues here today.”

After all, whatever any decent person thinks of Beijing’s contemptible crackdown in Hong Kong, arguably genocidal campaigns against the Uighur minority, and brutally totalitarian system generally, what genuinely serious person could believe that the United States, or other democracies, had any intention or capability of halting these practices?

What might have made an actually useful, and credible, impression on the Chinese from a U.S. standpoint would have been blunt declarations that (a) Beijing’s saber-rattling toward (global semiconductor manufacturing leader) Taiwan and sealanes-jeopardizing expansionism in the South China Sea, and cyber-attacks were major threats to American security and prosperity that the United States would keep responding to with all means necessary; and (b) that Washington would continue using a full-range of tariffs and sanctions against predatory Chinese economic practices as long as they continued harming U.S. businesses and their employees. That is, Blinken and Sullivan should have emphasized Chinese actions that hurt and endanger Americans – and against which in the economic sphere, Donald Trump’s policies showed Washington could make a significant difference.

It’s possible that in the private sessions, President Biden’s emissaries will dispense with the grandstanding and zero in on the basics. (Although that shift would raise the question of why this approach was deemed unsuitable for the public.) But the Biden-ites weirdly advertised in advance that China’s economic abuses and the technology development threat it poses wouldn’t be U.S. priorities at any stage of the Alaska meetings.

In the mid-20^th century, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr popularized (although probably didn’t write) a devotion called the “Serenity Prayer” whose famous first lines read “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” I’m hoping someone puts copies into Blinken’s and Sullivan’s briefcases for their flight back from Alaska.

Making News: Podcast On-Line of New Biden China Radio Interview

Tags

Biden, China, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, tariffs, The New John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to announce that I was interviewed on John Batchelor’s new radio show on Tuesday, and the podcast is on-line now. So click on this link for a great discussion among John, me, and co-host Gordon G. Chang on the outlook for U.S. China policy – and especially the Trump tariffs – under President Biden.  Several other economic issues were tackled, too!

BTW, John’s show will be changing its national syndication arrangements shortly, so there was more of a lag than usual in posting the podcast link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Winter Smacks February U.S. Manufacturing Output but Forecast Remains Bright

Tags

aerospace, aircraft, American Rescue Plan, automotive, Biden, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, Donald Trump, facemasks, Federal Reserve, industrial production, inflation-adjusted output, machinery, manufacturing, masks, medical equipment, petroleum refining, pharmaceuticals, plastics, PPE, real growth, resins, semiconductor shortage, semiconductors, stimulus package, tariffs, Texas, Trade, vaccines, winter, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Count me as one awfully surprised blogger when I saw this morning’s Federal Reserve U.S. manufacturing production figures (for February), which reported a 3.12 percent sequential drop in industry’s inflation-adjusted output. That was by far the worst such monthly performance since pandemicky April’s 15.83 percent crashdive, and even though the Fed largely blamed harsh winter weather in much of the country, it still contended that manufacturing would have shrunk by about half a percent even in balmier conditions.

A big reason for my surprise was the apparent contrast between these results and the findings of the monthly manufacturing surveys conducted by various of the Fed’s regional branches. They’re soft data, presenting manufacturers’ perceptions rather than actual changes in output (or jobs, or capital spending, or any other indicator), and I’ve written before that soft data are anything but perfect. But not only were the production reads in these surveys strong. They were strong even in Texas, where the storms were so severe. (And the Dallas Fed’s survey was conducted as they were raging.) Moreover, the same held for the February results from the neighboring Kansas City Fed bank.

Further, other hard data – specifically, on jobs – pointed to a good February for manufacturing, too, as industry expanded its payrolls by 21,000.

But the new Fed production numbers shouldn’t be dismissed entirely, so let’s look at the…lowlights, starting with the revisions, which were moderately negative. January’s previously reported 1.04 percent monthly advance is now pegged at 1.29 percent. December’s already once-downgraded inflation-adjusted output growth was lowered again, from 0.94 percent to 0.84 percent. November’s result, which had been upgraded twice (most recently to 1.10 percent) is now judged to have been 1.05 percent. October’s string of upward revisions was stopped, too, as the new report reveals a downgrade from 1.51 percent to 1.39 percent.

Overall, these readings mean that domestic manufacturing’s after-inflation production has grown by 20.26 percent since its April nadir, and stands 3.83 percent below its last pre-pandemic reading, from February.

As not the case with recent Fed industrial production reports, the output changes were highly concentrated in a few industries. Bearing out the central bank’s observation that “some petroleum refineries, petrochemical facilities, and plastic resin plants suffered damage from the deep freeze and were offline for the rest of the month,” most of these sectors saw outsized price-adjusted month-to-month drops in February. For petroleum and coal products, the fall-off was 4.43 percent, and for the huge chemicals sector, 7.11 percent Interestingly, the chemicals decline was even bigger than that it suffered last April, at the depths of the pandemic and related economic activity curbs (6.08 percent).

And as for those resin plants? Their February real output plummeted by fully 28.12 percent – much more than at any time last spring, during the pandemic’s height, and the worst such performance since the 30.64 percent cratering during Great Recessionary September, 2008. In fact, constant dollar output in the industry sank to its lowest level since equally Great Recessionary March, 2009.

Another February real production decrease that looks temporary (but perhaps longer-lasting): the 8.26 percent plunge in constant dollar automotive production. The main culprit is no doubt a global shortage of semiconductors that could well weigh on the entire domestic manufacturing sector going forward.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the machinery sector is a major barometer of manufacturing’s overall health, because its products are used throughout industry. So given February’s poor results for the entire sector, it’s no surprise that real machinery output was off by 2.33 percent on month. But January’s results were upgraded tremendously – from 0.52 percent after-inflation growth to 2.59 percent. So price-adjusted machinery output is still within 1.17 percent of its final pre-pandemic levels.

Because Boeing’s protracted safety-related problems continue to clear up, aircraft and parts production notched another month of growth in real terms in February – an increase of 1.04 percent. Revisions, however, were negative, especially December’s – its previously upgraded production increase (to a strong 3.03 percent) is now judged to be a 0.61 percent decline. Largely as a result, inflation-adjusted output is now just fractionally above its February pre-pandemic level.

The picture was brighter in pharmaceuticals and medicines. This industry, which includes vaccines, saw its after-inflation production climbed by anorther 1.29 percent in February. Moreover, January’s initially reported robust 2.42 percent increase was revised to an even better 2.57 percent. As a result, pharmaceutical and medicines real output is now 5.62 percent higher than just before the pandemic, and should generate even better results in the coming months, as vaccine production will be surging even more strongly.

Unfortunately, the also vital medical equipment and supplies sector – which includes virus-fighting items like face masks, face masks, protective gowns, and ventilators – is still behind the curve. Constant dollar production actually dipped by 0.56 percent on month in February, although in another major revision, January’s performance is now judged to be a 1.08 percent gain rather than a 0.54 percent loss. All the same, real production in this sector (which encompasses many other products as well) is still 1.37 percent less than just before the CCP Virus and the lockdowns arrived in force.

All told, I’m still full of confidence about domestic manufacturing production, due to the Boeing, vaccines, and now the Biden stimulus effects. And don’t forget the administration’s continued reluctance to lift its predecessor’s towering and sweeping tariffs on China, and on metals imports from many countries. Lastly: The weather’s bound to keep getting better!