Making News: Video of China Panel Presentation Now On-Line

Tags

China, conservatives, economics, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, Making News, national security, Trade

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my participation in a late July panel discussion on “China, Geonomics, and Great Power Competition.” Here’s the link.

The event was especially interesting because it was held as part of a conference put on by the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), and because for decades intellectually honest conservatives have been torn over the question of how and even whether to respond to China’s wide-ranging economic predation. (As with liberals, other conservatives have simply served as corporate-funded backers of coddling China.)   

On the one hand, many have recognized that growing national economic power (which China has amassed largely through its tariffs, technology blackmail, intellectual property theft, and other practices having nothing to do with free trade or any form of free markets) tends to translate into growing national military power. Therefore, some limits on doing business with the People’s Republic have always been considered justified (e.g., no arms sales). On the other hand, even these conservatives’ fundamental opposition to limits on economic activity has bred a decided reluctance to endorse any but the most threadbare curbs – which folks like me have viewed as pathetically inadequate (for reasons I lay out).

As ISI has explained, the purpose of the overall conference was to “hash out what a conservative approach to the economy should look like today” – which reflects its admirable willingness to reexamine longstanding dogmas. So IMO, the Institute deserves a lot of credit for including China policy on this list, and I’m grateful to have been included in this piece of the process. P.S.  I attended most of the rest of the conference, and found the treatment of other issues fascinating. If ISI posts the entire event at one link, I’ll pass it along as soon as I can find it.   

In the meantime, keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Even Pre-Delta, the CCP Virus Kept Roiling U.S. Trade Flows

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade flows, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, services trade, supply chains, Taiwan, Trade, trade deficit, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Today’s official monthly U.S. trade figures (for July) revealed once again how the tumultuous stop-start nature of the nation’s CCP Virus-era economy keep greatly complicating figuring out its real health and whether it’s improving. That goes double for assessing whether the economy is returning to pre-virus normality.

As you may remember, last month I wrote that the June data “brought to an end for the time being the pattern this calendar year of the total U.S. deficit and goods shortfall statistics stabilizing on a monthly basis, along with the crucial non-oil goods gap data.” (The non-oil goods numbers represent that portion of U.S. trade flows most heaviy influenced by trade policy decisions – which is why I’ve dubbed this category “Made in Washington” trade.)

The reason: The U.S. Census Bureau, which tracks the trade flows, reported that the combined goods and services trade gap widened by 6.70 percent, to $75.75 billion in June – an all-time high that broke the $72.72 billion record set in March.

Today, however, the June total trade shortfall was revised down to $73.23 billion – a record till this morning, but 3.33 percent lower (a downgrade that’s really big by Census Bureau standards). Moreover, the July overall trade deficit came in at just $70.05 billion, which is right in line with the January-May average that so encouraged me last month.   

These fluctuations came mainly before the virus’ Delta variant struck the United States with full force, so such progress could vanish by next month. All the same, it’s reasonable to observe that the combined deficit shrunk for the best combination of reasons from a U.S. standpoint. Total goods and services exports climbed by 1.31 percent to $212.83 billion, the highest such level since May, 2019’s $213.97 billion. And overall imports dipped by 0.15 percent, from June’s slightly downwardly revised $283.31 billion to $282.88 billion – a total that’s still the second highest ever.

Even better, this deficit’s 4.34 percent sequential decline was achieved even though the long-time U.S. services trade surplus plunged by 11.77 percent on month. Of course, services have been the segment of the American and global economies that have been hit hardest by CCP Virus-related disruptions (think, especially, travel and transportation in general). But it’s still noteworthy that this July level was the lowest since September, 2012 (way before the pandemic), and the monthly decrease was the biggest since August, 2008’s 14.03 percent plummet, in the midst of the Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis.

At the same time, the services trade surplus number reported today for June ($20.03 billion) was revised up a mind-boggling 14.94 percent from the previously judged level of $17.43 billion. So that’s another reason to suspend judgment on any of these most recent virus-era economic data.

Keeping this (big) caveat in mind, the goods trade numbers released today were definitely good news. The chronic deficit in this portion of America’s trade flows (by far the biggest) sank sequentially by a healthy 5.93 percent, to $87.72 billion. That’s the lowest such total since April’s $87.09 billion, and the new June figure was revised only slightly higher, so this decline looks genuine so far.

In addition, goods exports in July, which increased by 1.83 percent on month, to $148.59 billion, set their fourth straight monthly record. July goods imports were off 1.20 perent sequentially from June’s all-time monthly high of $239.18 billion. But the $236.31 billion total was still the third highest ever.

The deficit reduction in that non-oil goods trade category was encouraging as well. At 6.91 percent, it was bigger than that for goods overall, and the greatest monthly fall-off since February, 2020’s 7.91 percent – when the original outbreak of the CCP Virus was still keeping much of China’s export-heavy economy at a standstill.

Of course, continuing snags in global supply chains are doubtless holding down U.S. exports, imports, and deficits, so they add up to another virus-related reason for caution in interpreting any single month’s trade data. But these disruptions have marked the entire CCP Virus period, so the July improvements can’t be written off entirely.

That goes for China-related trade flows as well. Especially important is that the July bilateral goods deficit of $28.65 billion was just 2.89 percent larger than June’s $27.84 billion, and represents the eight straight month when these results have stayed in the same neighborhood. That development sure looks like a sign that the Trump administration tariffs that President Biden has continued are still impeding China’s access to the U.S. market. So does the fact that, on year, the China goods trade shortfall has risen much more slowly (14.98 percent) than the total U.S. non-oil goods shortfall that’s its closest global proxy (21.39 percent).

The news on the U.S. trade manufacturing front was good, too – but only in relative terms. Despite the 3.12 percent monthly decrease in domestic industry’s huge, chronic trade deficit from last month’s record $114.06 billion total, the July figure of $110.50 billion was still the second biggest on record.

On month, manufacturing exports dipped by 1.90 percent, from $97.06 billion to $95.22 billion. But the much greater amount of imports was down 2.56 percent, from $211.11 billion to $205.72 billion.

Year-to-date, the manufacturing deficit is up fully 25.42 percent this year, to $732.62 billion, and is on track to shatter the annual record of $1.11277 trillion set just last year.

From January-to-July, 2020 to the same seven-month stretch this year, manufacturing exports have jumpe by 18.80 percent, to $642.16 billion. But the much greater amount of manufacturing imports has surged by 22.24 percent, to $1.37477 trillion.

In other notable July trade developments, the U.S. goods deficit with Taiwan, now the world’s leader in semiconductor manufacturing technology, hit its fourth straight monthly record ($3.62 billion), and the goods gap with Japan, another tech and manufacturing powerhouse, rocketed up month-to-month by 27.43 percent, to $6.29 billion. This total was the highest since last November’s $6.78 billion. And the Canada goods deficit retreated by 22.05 percent from as June total of $5.46 billion that was its highest since October, 2008.

Making News: Podcast of National Radio Interview on China’s Economy Now On-Line

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, Donald Trump, exports, globalization, Gordon G. Chang, logistics, Making News, supply chains, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, transportation, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my latest interview on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. The segment, which aired last night, can be found here, and focused on China’s economic performance lately – which John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and I all agreed is showing definite signs of struggling.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Analyzing China’s Economy

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, debt, Delta variant, exports, Gordon G. Chang, Making News, supply chains, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to report that I’m slated to return tonight to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. Our subject:  how well or poorly China’s economy is handling a CCP Virus surge among its own population and in many countries that are major markets for its exports.

I’m not sure exactly when the segment is scheduled for tonight’s program, but John’s show is on the air week nights from 9 PM to 1 AM EST, and it’s always provocative and informative. You can listen live to our China conversation – including co-host Gordon G. Chang – at this link. And for those of you who can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

Also – keep checking in with RealityChek for news of upcoming media appearances and other developments

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Trade Normality Revealed in New GDP Figures – But for How Long?

Tags

CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, exports, GDP, goods trade, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, lockdowns, real exports, real GDP, real imports, real trade deficit, recession, recovery, services trade, Trade, trade deficit, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Last month, I reported that the trade highlights of the first official read on U.S. economic growth in the second quarter of this year showed signs that some form of normality was returning to the nation’s international trade flows after months of unprecedented pandemic-era fluctuations. This morning, the second government estimate of the second quarter gross domestic product (GDP) came out (next month we’ll see the final version – for now), and the signs of a new normality look even stronger.

Specifically, the sequential growth of America’s inflation-adjusted trade deficit during this period was even slower than the slowish rate presented in last month’s GDP release – and using the phrase “to a crawl” seems justified in describing the pace.

That initial estiimate revealed that the real trade gap’s quarterly widening had slowed from the sizzling 31.81 percent in the third quarter of last year, when the economy was roaring back from its brief but epic CCP Virus- and lockdown-induced crash dive to just 2.69 percent between this April and June (a strong growth period itself, but nothing compared with the initial recession rebound). Today, however, the after-inflation trade shortfall’s expansion came in at just 1.71 percent for the second quarter – when real growth itself clocked in at 6.40 percent on an annual basis, not the 6.35 percent estimated last month.

The new number for the second quarter’s price-adjusted trade deficit, $1.2471 billion annualized, remains astronomical by any reasonable standard. Not only is it still the biggest such figure in absolute terms. It’s the biggest such figure in relative terms – as a share of real GDP – where it still stands at 6.44 percent. And this revised trade deficit remains the fourth straight all-time high recorded. For some more perspective, the inflation-adjusted gap is also still 47.13 percent wider than where it stood in the fourth quarter of 2019 ($847.6 billion), just before the pandemic and its effect began weakening and distorting the economy.

More encouragingly, though, the new trade deficit result is a significant improvement over the $1.2590 trillion first reported. Also on the plus side, the after-inflation trade deficit’s sequential rise cut only 0.24 percentage points from the quarter’s 6.40 percent growth at an annual rate. That is, had the second quarter deficit stayed at its first quarter level, second quarter growth would have been 6.64 percent annualized – or 3.75 percent faster.

It all adds up to the trade deficit’s best such effect on real GDP change in absolute terms since the second quarter of 2020, when the deficit’s shrinkage prevented the nearly 36 percent pandemic-produced real GDP plunge from becoming slightly worse. By contrast, in the first quarter of this year, the inflation-adjusted trade shortfall’s increase cut the 6.14 percent annualized real growth figure by 1.56 percentage point. So had there been no sequential increase at all, that quarter’s price-adjusted growth would have been 7.70 percent at annual rates – a difference of fully 25.41 percent.

The manner in which the second quarter’s constant dollar trade gap improved over the initial read was good news as well, as after-inflation exports rose faster and their import counterparts climbed more slowly than reported last month.

Rather than growing by 1.47 percent sequentially during the second quarter, total after-inflation exports were judged to have advanced by 1.60 percent. At $2.2980 trillion annualized, though, they’re still 9.98 percent lower than in the fourth quarter of 2019 – the last full quarter before the CCP Virus’ arrival. As a result, the second quarter’s real export performance was an even greater improvement over the first quarter’s 0.73 percent dip than previously thought.

Combined goods and services imports were reported up by 1.64 percent between the first and second quarters, not 1.90 percent, as originally reported. This new figure also beat the first quarter’s 2.25 percent sequential real import increase.

At the same time, the new inflation-adjusted total import figure of $3.5547 trillion annualized still represents their second straight quarterly record, and such purchases from abroad are still 4.26 percent higher than their fourth quarter, 2019 level.

Turning to goods (the vast majority of U.S. trade flows), the second GDP read for the second quarter left standing their dubious record of a fourth straight all-time high trade deficit. But as with the overall trade deficit, the new figure of $1.4014 trillion annualized was a solid improvement from the previously reported $1.4610 trillion. And as a result, the second quarter number was only marginally (0.40 percent) worse than the first quarter figure, making clear a major slowdown in this indicator’s rise as well (from 20.40 percent during last year’s super-growth third quarter).

Unfortunately, the revised second quarter real service trade figures told a story that was especially gloomy even given this sector’s well known and disproportionate virus- and lockdown-induced woes. The long-running service trade surplus is now pegged at $149.5 billion for the April-through-June period. That’s a figure lower than the $151.2 billion previously reported, and the weakest quarterly result since the $161.7 billion recorded in the third quarter of 2010, when the recovery from the 2007-2008 financial crisis and Great Recession was in its earliest stages.

Also unfortunate – and frustrating: Whatever is shown in the final (for now) second quarter GDP report, the results will be pre-Delta variant. So although today’s data shows trade normalization to be even closer than previously thought, that next set could be of limited use at best in figuring out how long it’s going to last.

Making News: Back on National Radio Talking China Trade

Tags

Biden, China, Donald Trump, inflation, Making News, offshoring lobby, tariffs, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war

I’m pleased to report that the podcast is now on-line of my return last night to John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show. The main subjects: (1) China trade’s real impact on the U.S. economy; (2) the increasingly bold campaign by the American Offshoring Lobby to push President Biden to cut way back unilaterally on the Trump tariffs; and (3) the completely fact-free arguments being used to justify this kind of trade cave-in.

Click here to listen to the segment, which also features co-host Gordon G. Chang.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio on Headline Economic Issues

Tags

infrastructure, Jobs, Making News, manufacturing, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, productivity, tariffs, Trade

Sorry this is a little late, but I’m pleased to announce that I appeared on Tuesday, August 3, on Moe Ansari’s nationally syndicated “Market Wrap” radio program.

Click here and scroll down till you see my name for the podcast of the segment –  which dealt with leading economic issues ranging from the latest developments in U.S. trade policy to the health of our domestic manufacturing base to the prospects for major new federal infrastructure spending and what kind of boost it may give to the nation’s growth rate, its job creation, and its productivity.

The interview begins at about the 21:40 mark of the August 3 program.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Revisions Outshone the New U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Gains

Tags

aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft parts, appliances, automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, electrical equipment, Employment, fabricated metals products, Jobs, Labor Department, machinery, manufacturing, medicines, metals, miscellaneous durable goods, NFP, non-farm payrolls, personal protective equipment, pharmaceuticals, PPE, recovery, tariffs, Trade, vaccines, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although U.S. manufacturers grew their payrolls by a solid net 27,000 in July, according to the Labor Department’s new jobs report for the month, the big story for industry lies in the June revisions. As often the case during the CCP Virus era, moreover, these were dominated by the automotive sector.

Specifically, June’s initially reported monthly 15,000 manufacturing jobs increase was boosted all the way up to 39,000. And the automotive numbers for June executed a stunning turnabout – from an estimated loss of 12,300 to a gain of 2,700. By contrast, net hiring in the vehicles and parts sectors for July was a quiet 800.

The May manufacturing employment revisions were less dramatic – from an increase 39,000 to one of 36,000. But that month had already witnessed its own huge revision – from an initially reported 23,000 to that 39,000.

Outside automotive, the June revisions were widespread through manufacturing, led by electrical equipment and appliances, whose employment increase that month was upgraded from 1,700 to 3,600. (Its July net job creation was a mere 200.)

Even with the strong revisions, though, manufacturing’s recent status as a U.S. recovery employment laggard continued. As of July, domestic industry had regained 952,000 (68.74 percent) of the 1.385 million net jobs lost in March and April of 2020. The numbers for the private sector overall are 76.96 percent of the 21.353 million lost jobs that have been recovered, and for the total non-farm economy (the definition of the American employment universe used by the U.S. government, which includes government jobs) 74.50 percent of the 22.362 million jobs lost.

One reason, of course, is that manufacturing employment suffered less than payrolls in the rest of the economy in the early spring of 2020. Its job levels fell by 10.82 percent, compared with 16.46 percent for the private sector and 14.66 for the entire non-farm economy.

At the same time, U.S.-based industry is still benefiting from stiff tariffs on metals and goods from China, and like the entire economy, is being supported by massive government stimulus along with skyrocketing vaccine production. This puzzle may be explained by the bottlenecks and resulting shortages plaguing all industries, and by the introduction of labor-saving equipment and other restructuring to substitute for the workers so many manufacturers claim are so hard to find. But as I wrote in last month’s examination of the June jobs report, I’m not completely convinced yet by either explanation.

The biggest July manufacturing employment winners by far of the major industry categories used by the U.S. government were machinery (6,800), miscellaneous durable goods (5,500), and fabricated metals products (4,500).

The performance of the first two is especially encouraging, since machinery’s products are used so widely throughout the entire economy (and since robust hiring therefore signals widespread overall strength and healthy capital spending); and since miscellaneous durable goods includes the personal protective equipment (PPE) and other medical supplies whose importance has been underscored by the pandemic.

Indeed, as a result of their July jobs gains, machinery employment has risen to within 3.30 percent of its immediate pre-pandemic level (in February, 2020), and the comparable figure for miscellaneous durable goods is 1.09 percent higher. (More on the performance of its PPE-including category will be presented below.) Both figures are better than that for manufacturing overall, whose payrolls are still 3.38 percent lower than just before the CCP Virus began significantly affecting the economy.

The only July manufacturing jobs losers suffered overwhelmingly fractional sequential setbacks, led by transportation equipment overall (the category containing automotive, where employment sank by 1,500) and semiconductors and electronic components, where global shortages undoubtedly had much to do with its job loss of 800.

Returning to the pandemic-related industries, where the data are one month behind, the picture in surgical appliances and supplies (the sector containing PPE) is dominated by a big downgrade in the May numbers – from a gain of 1,700 to a loss of 900. And in June, 500 more positions were shed. As a result, employment in this crucial national health security sector has fallen to 7.60 percent above immediate pre-pandemic levels.

In the overall pharmaceuticals and medicines industry, a slightly upgrade of May’s originally reported 400 job loss (to a drop of 300) was followed by a June rise of 2,700 – the biggest monthly advance since September, 2019’s 3,500 (well before the CCP Virus arrived). Its employment levels have consequently climbed to 4.72 percent above their February, 2020 figure.

The pharmaceuticals subsector containing vaccines showed continued good job growth, with May’s unrevised 1,000 improvement followed by an identical June increase. This industry now employs 10.20 percent more workers than just before the pandemic.

Aircraft employment levels have fluctuated wildly recently, due surely to the constant barrage of news both good and bad about Boeing. May’s 5,500 job plunge – the worst such performance since June, 2020’s 5,800 shrinkage – was followed by a June gain of 4,500. That’s its best hiring month since the same number of workers was added in July, 2012. But aircraft employment is still 7.55 percent less than in February, 2020, when the pandemic’s spread globally decimated air travel worldwide. On a more positive note, however, Boeing seems to believe the worst is over.

Aircraft engines and parts employment has been much more stable than aircraft’s, and these industries added 500 workers in total in June. But their payrolls are 14.91 percent smaller than in February, 2020 – nearly twice as big a proportional drop as in aircraft.

What’s next for domestic manufacturing employment? Last month I saw plenty of sources of uncertainty, ranging from bottlenecks to the infrastructure legislation to China tariff policy. Now there’s the virus’ hyper-contagious (but so far less harmful) Delta variant to contend with, and all the resumed lockdowns and other economic activity restrictions it could portend – along with the related likelihood of continued strong and even greater vaccine demand (though the sector isn’t big enough to move the national manufacturing jobs needle much).

I’m still most impressed by how all the national and regional surveys keep showing that manufacturers themselves see a still-brightening future ahead. (See, e.g., here and here.) After all, they’re the ones with skin in the game. Let’s hope they’re right. 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More of the (Wrong Kind of) Records in the New U.S. Trade Figures

Tags

Canada, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Delta variant, Donald Trump, Europe, exports, goods trade, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods trade deficit, services trade, Taiwan, tariffs, Trade, trade deficit, trade policy, trade war, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

About a week ago, I wrote here that the new (second quarter) figures on U.S. economic growth displayed some tentative signs of pre-pandemic normality returning to the nation’s CCP Virus-disrupted trade flows. This morning’s release of the detailed official U.S. trade figures for June reveals that those signs (which came from the inflation-adjusted numbers) were awfully tentative, and that pandemic distortions remain the order of the day.

Indeed, the June trade data brought to an end for the time being the pattern this calendar year of the total U.S. deficit and goods shortfall statistics stabilizing on a monthly basis, along with the crucial non-oil goods gap data. As known by RealityChek regulars, those trade flows can be called the “Made in Washington” portion of U.S. trade, since they make up the category of imports and exports whose levels and changes are most influenced by U.S. trade policy. In that way, they differ from oil trade (which is almost never the subject of trade negotiations and other policy decisions) and services trade (where liberalization efforts worldwide have made only modest progress). Moreover, manufacturing trade in June exhibited the same discouraging characteristics. 

There is one important exception to June’s trend break: The China goods deficit and goods import numbers changed only slightly (for the worse). In fact, they’ve stayed in the same neighborhoods since China’s export-heavy economy rebounded from its own virus-induced shutdown in early 2020. These results look like strong indicators that the Trump tariffs have played major roles in reducing the harm done to the U.S. economy by Beijing’s predatory trade practices. So does the resilience throughout the pandemic shown by U.S. domestic manufacturing – since industry dominates Sino-American trade flows.

But the trade records set in June remain noteworthy. After staying right around $70 billion on average since January (with the exception of a brief March move to just over $75 billion), the combined goods and services shortfall rose 6.70 percent,from $70.99 billion in May to $75.75 billion in June – an all-time high that broke the record set in March.

Since goods make up the great majority of U.S. trade flows, it wasn’t surprising that their deficit pattern was identical. They remained consistently in the high $80 billions since January (also with the exception of March) and then grew in June by 4.53 percent, from $70.99 billion to $75.75 billion. And this total also replaced March’s total as the new record.

The pattern was the same for Made in Washington trade. Its monthly deficit totals, except for March, remained in the high $80 billion range since January, too, then broke out in June from $86.73 billion to $92.42 billion – a rise of 6.56 percent to another all-time high that surpassed a previous March record.

Services trade set no records in June, but its $17.43 billion surplus was the smallest since August, 2012’s $17.08 billion. Because the CCP Virus’ Delta variant hadn’t raised the prospect of more economic curbs back in June, this figure will be worth following closely, since services are so vulnerable to virus-prompted restrictions.

Combined U.S. goods and services exports did bump up by 0.58 percent on month in June, from May’s $206.47 billion to $207.67 billion. In addition, that represented the biggest monthly total since the $209.88 billion recorded in December, 2019 – just before the pandemic is thought to have arrived in the United States. But the much greater amount of total imports climbed by 2.15 percent, from $277.46 billion to a new record of $283.42 billion.

At $145.91 billion, goods exports set their fourth straight monthly record in June. But they continued to improve slowly – by just 0.19 percent over the May total. In fact, since March, they’ve only advanced by 1.57 percent in all on a monthly basis, no doubt in part to relatively sluggish growth in most of the world outside the United States.

The much larger amount of goods imports climbed much faster in June – by 1.84 percent on month, to reach their second straight all-time high of $239.09 billion.

As for services, exports in June advanced by a respectable 1.53 percent, to $61.76 billion. The monthly improvement was the fourth straight, and their best performance since February, 2020’s $69.12 billion. But clearly these levels remain depressed.

Services imports in June also set a post-February, 2020 high ($44.35 billion versus $47.06 billion) and increased for the fifth straight month. But they rose more than twice as fast (3.84 percent) as services exports, and their levels are also well below pre-CCP Virus levels.

America’s non-oil goods exports actually fell sequentially on month in June – by 1.62 percent, from a record $129.66 billion in May to $127.56 billion. The much greater amount of imports, however, grew by 1.66 percent, to $219.98 billion, a level that slightly topped the previous all-time high of $219.68 billion set in March.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China did worsen in June – from May’s $26.32 billion to $27.84 billion. But the 5.79 percent increase trailed that of the non-oil goods gap, the closest global proxy (6.56 percent). The year-to-date totals tell the same story: The China goods shortfall is up more slowly ( 20.81 percent) than the global Made in Washington deficit (24.59 percent).

Back to the monthly figures, U.S. goods exports to China fell by 2.49 percent between May and June – from $12.41 billion to $12.10 billion. Imports, however, were 3.13 percent higher ($38.73 billion to $39.95 billion).

Especially interesting: On a monthly basis, U.S. goods imports from China have inched up only from $39.11 billion to $39.95 billion. For all non-oil goods by this measure, U.S. imports have risen much faster – from $205.08 billion to $219.98 billion. So it seems clear that the Trump tariffs keep pricing many Chinese goods out of the U.S. market.

But although America’s China and non-oil goods trade shortfalls have stayed fairly stable on a monthly basis since January, its manufacturing trade gap has widened substantially. Already lofty enough during the first month of the year at $99.79 billion, it stood 4.87 percent higher in June – $114.06 billion.

Further, this total broke the previous record of $110.20 billion, set last October.

Domestic manufacturing exports improved by 1.81 percent on month, from $95.33 billion to $97.06 billion. But the much greater amount of imports jumped by 4.49 percent, from $202.04 billion to $211.11 billion.

On a year-to-date basis, moreover, the manufacturing deficit has surged by just under 30 percent. At $622.12 billion as of June, it’s headed toward an all-time annual record.

Other manufacturing records or multi-year highs revealed by the June data included a record monthly deficit of $28.14 billion goods deficit with Europe (including its eastern and western regions, as well as Russia); the third consecutive record monthly goods deficit with new world semiconductor manufacturing technology leader Taiwan ($3.49 billion); and the highest goods deficit with Canada ($5.46 billion) since October, 2008 ($5.65 billion).

A single month’s worth of data doesn’t prove anything, so truly credible judgments about the possible return to pre-pandemic U.S. trade normality still can’t be made based on the data. Also crucial is examining trade figures and their changes against the backdrop of the entire economy’s size and its changes, in order to provide crucial context. When looking at growth and contraction rates in particular the challenge is difficult because trade flow changes only affect the rest of the economy after the passage of some time. 

And of course, if the virus’ Delta variant prompts major, nation-wide U.S. economic restrictions and behavior changes, all trade – and broader economic – forecasting bets are off for the time being.        

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why That China Competitiveness Bill Urgently Needs Trade Fixes

Tags

China, competitiveness, consumers, health security, inflation, Robert E. Lighthizer, Section 301, Senate, supply chains, tariffs, technology, Trade, Trade Act of 1974, U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, World Trade Organization, WTO, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Nearly two months ago, I complained here on RealityChek that Congress was working way too slowly on legislation aimed at helping restore the U.S. competitiveness needed to reopen a wide lead over China in the dust in the race for future global technological competitiveness. Now I see that more time to pass the bill is needed after all – because the version approved by the Senate June 8 contains some fatal trade policy flaws that urgently need fixing.

Trade policy, as I’ve explained previously is a vital dimension of beating back the China challenge. But as reported yesterday in a New York Times article by former Trump chief trade official Robert E. Lighthizer, key amendments to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act

“would harm U.S. interests in three important ways: It would cut tariffs on medical supplies needed in a pandemic; reauthorize the so-called Miscellaneous Tariff Bill to cut tariffs on Chinese and other imports; and amend our enforcement laws in a way that will make it more difficult to battle predatory trade practices by our foreign competitors.”

And if you read the (2,300-page) bill, you see that he’s right. For example, a section titled “Facilitating Trade in Essential Supplies” (beginning on p. 1588) refers to America’s need “to maintain readiness and to surge production of essential supplies in response to an emergency” in national security and public health and safety, or in the security and functioning of “critical infrastructure.”

But consistent with an approach taken to this challenge by President Biden, the act makes clear that achieving these goals includes developing “a whole-of-government strategy to ensure that the United States has reliable access to essential supplies from its trading partners….” In other words, it will be equally fine if the nation remains dependent on imports of such goods. These two objectives clash with each other directly and violently.

If Washington could count on lots of reliable trade partners out there to step in in a pinch and fill supply gaps, this strategy of defining “Made in America” as “Made Overseas, Too” would be defensible (if not, in my view, optimal). But although the legislation directs federal officials to “identify unreliable trading partners,” its authors seem oblivious to just how many foreign governments qualified for this label with their bans and other curbs on vital medical goods during the height of the pandemic. It was 80 according to no less than the World Trade Organization (WTO).

According to Lighthizer, the bill would also undercut American industry’s broader ability to compete with China by renewing a Miscellaneous Tariff Bill that would reduce duties on more than 900 goods produced and exported by the People’s Republic. The list – which also includes hundreds of other goods, begins on p. 1526 and goes on (in tiny type) for thirty pages.

And the text also supports Lighthizer’s claims that the bill would “gut a provision that President Trump used to impose tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018,” and “also effectively surrender sovereignty over our own trade policy to the World Trade Organization by permanently weakening Section 301 unless the United States first wins a multiyear litigation before that body.”

Possibly, the most disturbing feature of the bill’s treatment of these so-called “301 tariffs” (named after the section of the 1974 Trade Act that initially authorized suc measures is the measure that bars the imposition of these duties without an analysis of their impact “on United States entities, particularly small entities, and consumers in the United States” (p. 1607), and additionally of whether they would “unreasonably increase consumer prices for day-to-day items consumed by low- or middle-income families in the United States” (p. 1609).

Although numerous RealityChek posts have documented (see, e.g., here) that none of the 301 tariffs had lasting effects on U.S. retail or wholesale price levels (largely because importers absorbed the higher costs), there’s no guarantee that significant time frames would be examined. In addition, there’s never any shortage of businesses or business organizations in particular ready to predict disastrous price hikes from any tariff increases regardless of the historical record. So the most powerful tool possessed by Washington to enforce trade agreements and combat foreign protectionism could well be neutered unless changes are made.

Finally, Lighthizer’s contention about permanently weakening America’s Section 301 authority appears borne out by pp. 1610-1611, which states that the process for excluding certain goods from that measure’s tariffs “shall not apply” in cases under consideration by the “dispute resolution process under the World Trade Organization [WTO].” In other words, if such U.S. tariffs are challenged at the WTO, they can’t legally be imposed until the WTO decides they’re kosher.

There shouldn’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that time is not on America’s side as it tries to raise its competitiveness game, both against the Chinese and in general. But it’s also true that haste makes waste — and even worse. And these trade policy flaws in this China competitiveness bill aren’t eliminated, Americans will see a crucial economic and national security opportunity squandered.