(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Curious Trade War Omission from the New York Fed

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, China, exports, Made in Washington trade flows, manufacturing, New York Fed, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump

If you were writing an economics blog item for a major government institution in America, and your subject was a trend that for two years now has been a major controversy in America, wouldn’t you include information on how that trend actually was affecting America?

Not apparently if you’re Hunter L. Clark, and you work for the New York branch of the Federal Reserve system – which hasn’t exactly been shy about weighing in on this controversy (President Trump’s tariffs on China) before (See, e.g., here and here.) Even more unusual: that previous New York Fed contribution to the trade war debate had emphatically concluded that the President’s policies have been an abject failure. Had this new item presented U.S.-relevant data, the clear conclusion would have been that the trade war has succeeded in at least one crucial respect.

Specifically, in a post last Friday, Clark wrote on how China’s export performance so far this year has been “supercharged” by the CCP Virus pandemic (which of course originated in one of its major cities).

Clark also noted various (convincing) reasons that this surge might be temporary, and even observed that some other counties had actually out-performed China export-wise. But China’s exports to the United States – which of course the tariffs (along with the rest of the President’s trade policies) aimed to curb and ultimately reduce) – went completely unmentioned. And that’s an awfully odd omission because combining Clark’s figures with readily available U.S. Census data shows that this wave of China export increases completely missed the United States.

According to Clark, compared with the same quarters last year, China’s overall goods exports this year “slightly increased in the second quarter and are currently forecast to grow by close to 6 percent in the third and fourth quarters of this year.” He italicized “increased” because forecasts generally expected a ten percent decline in Chinese overseas sales during these periods.

But despite that slight increase in China’s global merchandise exports between the second quarter of 2019 and the second quarter of 2020, during that year, official U.S. data show that these exports to the United States fell by 6.67 percent. And in contrast to the six percent improvement in China’s worldwide exports between the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of this year, its exports to the United States were down by 2.98 percent.

Also relevant to the trade war debate – did the Trump tariffs simply result in shifting the makeup of U.S. imports from China to other countries, therefore accomplishing nothing (at best) economically for the nation according to one of the Trump’s (and Trumpers’) favorite scorecards? Clark more reasonably doesn’t investigate this question, but the official American data make the Trump record look awfully good according to this standard, too.

As known by RealityChek regulars, the best global proxy for U.S.-China goods trade is U.S. non-oil China goods trade, and that’s especially true on the import side, since the United States buys no oil from China. And the numbers for this “Made in Washington” import flow (so named because commerce in these goods is strongly influenced by government trade policy) make clear that, whatever import shifting has taken place hasn’t prevented overall U.S. purchases of these foreign products from falling also.

Between the second quarter of 2019 and the second quarter of 2020, they fell by a whopping 18.92 percent. Since the U.S. September trade figures won’t be out until early next month, full third quarter results aren’t yet available. But on a July-August basis, these global Made in Washington imports were off by 2.13 percent.

These subjects, moreover, clearly are of more than academic or political score-settling interest. Despite facing the same CCP Virus-induced disruptions as the rest of the economy, domestic manufacturing – which is heavily exposed to Chinese and other foreign competition – has held up well. In inflation-adjusted terms, it’s production from its February peak through September is down just over six percent. Employment has been relatively resilient, too, along with capital spending.

Imagine how much worse its troubles would have been if it experienced the kind of Chinese export flood that’s washed over other economies. Indeed, this counter-factual seems eminently worthy of study. Including by the New York Fed.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Public Outscores the Experts on China Trade Policy

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, allies, America First, Blob, Center for Strategic and International Studies, China, CSIS, elites, globalism, multilateralism, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, World Trade Organization, WTO

So many big takeaways from a new poll on U.S. and global attitudes toward China and U.S. China policy (both the economic and national security dimensions), I hardly know where to begin! But if I could only write a lede paragraph for a single news article (or blog item), here’s what I’d say: The American public is a great deal more sensible on how to deal with the People’s Republic than so-called “thought leaders.” And what I mean by “more sensible” is more “America First-y” and less globalist.

The survey was conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank not only squarely in the globalist camp, but a charter member of the globalist, bipartisan U.S. foreign policy “Blob” (which includes a sizable trade and economic sub-Blob) that exerted dominant influence over America’s course in world affairs until Donald Trump came along, and whose supposed expertise still mesmerizes the Mainstream Media.

Of special interest, CSIS sampled opinion from everyday Americans, those so-called thought leaders (whose follower-ship, as implied above, is greatly diminished), and thought leaders from countries that are U.S. allies or “partners.”

The gap between public and elites on China policy views seems widest on the economic and trade issues that President Trump has made so central to his approach towards the People’s Republic, and the CSIS survey contains decidedly good news for him and his fans in this area: The general public is much more supportive of the “go-it-alone,” unilateral sanctions and tariffs imposed by Mr. Trump to combat and/or eliminate Chinese transgressions in this area than the Blob-ers.

Although a multilateral approach (using “international agreements and rules to change China” economically) won plurality backing among the general public (34.8 percent), fully 69 percent of the U.S. thought leaders favored this route. Yet nearly a third of the U.S. public (32.8 percent) endorsed employing “U.S. government tools like sanctions and tariffs”, versus only three percent of the deep thinkers.

As I’ve written repeatedly, (e.g., here and here) a multilateral China trade strategy is bound to fail because international institutions (like the World Trade Organization) are too completely filled by countries that either rely heavily on China-style predation to compete in the global economy, and because even (or especially?) longstanding U.S. treaty allies had been doing business so profitably with the People’s Republic that the last development they wanted to see was a disruption of the pre-Trump status quo. So support for multilateralism in this case can legitimately be taken as support for do-nothing-ism – especially since the vast majority of these elites so enthusiastically pushed for the reckless U.S. expansion of commerce with China that’s lined many of their pockets, but that’s undermined American prosperity and national security.

The CSIS poll, moreover, provides some indirect evidence for this argument: Nearly as high a share of the foreign thought leaders backed a multilateral approach for dealing with China economically (65 percent) as their U.S. counterparts. And their support of U.S.-only approaches (seven percent) was only slightly higher than that of the U.S. thought leaders’ three percent. (The foreign thought leaders may be slightly more gung ho for America going it alone due to confidence that their own products will fill any gaps in the China market left by U.S. producers shut out by the trade wars. On a net basis, though, their countries are coming out losers this year.)

At the same time, one surprising (at least to me) economics-related finding emerged from the survey: Whether we’re talking about the American people generally, or thought leaders at home or abroad, just under 20 percent favor substantial decoupling from China as the best economic approach for the United States.

When it comes to messaging, however, the survey isn’t such great news for Mr. Trump – and Trumpers – on China trade issues. On the one hand, answers to the question on evaluating his performance in this area can – although with a stretch – be interpreted to show majority support for the view that his record has achieved noteworthy gains. Principally, 27.8 percent of U.S. public respondents agreed that the President’s China measures have “been effective in producing some tactical changes in Chinese economic policy” and 9.9 percent believe they have “been effective in forcing long-term changes.” Those groups add up to 37.7 percent of the sample.

Another 20.5 percent checked the box stating that Trump policies have “hurt U.S. consumers and exporters but protected important U.S. industries.” A case can be made that at least some members of this group would give these policies good grades, or that many would give them partly good grades, possibly bringing the total for positive views somewhere in the mid-40 percent neighborhood.

Much more certain, however, is that the most popular single answer (with 41.8 percent support) was that the trade war “has damaged U.S. economic interests without achieving positive change in China.”

Also signaling a Trump China messaging problem – as with much other commentary, the CSIS survey mostly measures China policy success as changing Chinese behavior. In my view, that goal is much less important – because it’s much less realistic, at least in terms of producing verifiable reform – than protecting U.S.-based producers from China’s economic predation. The relative resilience shown by domestic industry both throughout the trade war and into the CCP Virus-induced recession indicate that this goal is being achieved. But neither the President nor his economic nor his campaign team mentions it much, if at all.

CSIS’ polling also found that fully 71 percent of U.S. thought leaders gave Trump’s China economic policies the big thumbs down – and although they don’t vote, their aforementioned influence in the Mainstream Media could partly explain why broader American opinion on the Trump record seems so divided. (For the record, foreign thought leaders weren’t asked to rate the Trump strategy.)

But having established that everyday Americans have a good deal to teach the experts on China trade and economic policy, how do the two compare on China-related national security policies? As indicated above, the gap here isn’t nearly so wide, but worth exploring in some detail – as I’ll do in a forthcoming post!

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Trade Wars Would’ve Been Much Easier to Win if Not for Boeing

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, aerospace, aircraft, aircraft parts, Boeing, manufacturing, metals tariffs, tariffs, Trade, trade wars, Trump

Today’s grim news about recent Boeing aircraft orders and deliveries is just the latest valuable reminder that any evaluation of the Trump record on manufacturing and trade policy has to take into account the entire aircraft and parts industry’s transformation from a slight to a bigtime industrial laggard. Moreover, Boeing’s weakness – which has nothing to do with the President’s trade or any other policies — seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future, at least according to Boeing. The company’s latest long-term forecast for the global aircraft market affirms that it will take years for aviation worldwide to return to pre-CCP Virus levels.

The degree of the pain inflicted by Boeing’s troubles – which also include major safety woes that started making headlines in early 2019 – on the whole of domestic industry, and how unrelated manufacturing’s overall Trump era performance has been to the President’s tariff-heavy trade policies, becomes clear from diving into the most detailed U.S. manufacturing output figures available: the Federal Reserve’s industrial production data.

For example, the Fed numbers show that, during the Obama administration, adjusting for inflation, manufacturing output increased by 14.65 percent. Real aircraft and parts production output growth was just slightly slower: 12.39 percent.

But from the start of the Trump years until the arrival of the pandemic (February, 2017 through February, 2020), whereas the manufacturing sector as a whole expanded by 3.60 percent in price-adjusted terms, the aircraft and parts industry shrank by 13.10 percent.

Since the virus struck (from February through the latest available – August – numbers)? Manufacturing output is down by 6.39 percent after inflation, and aircraft and parts production is off by 10.81 percent.

As for the trade war impact, from March, 2018 (the first full month of President Trump’s metals tariffs and a good place for marking the start of the broader trade wars) until February, 2020 (the last month before the virus began significantly affecting manufacturing and the entire domestic economy), overall manufacturing production grew by a bare 0.83 percent. But that poor performance was clearly dragged down by the nation’s aircraft and parts factories – which turned out 10.74 percent less in terms of constant dollar product value.

Aircraft and parts were major industrial also-rans, too, during the comparable 23-month period preceding the first full month of the Trump metals tariffs. Their real production slumped by 4.11 percent, as manufacturing’s overall production rose by 4.07 percent.

The bottom line, then, couldn’t be clearer. The President was wrong in insisting that trade wars for big deficit countries like the United States are “easy to win.” But the facts also demonstrate that the victories the nation has won in these conflicts – which have been significant – would have been come much easier had the aerospace sector and its long-time leader Boeing not turned into such major losers.

Im-Politic: New Signs that Biden Will Lift the China Tariffs – & That Beijing is Counting on It

Tags

China, China tariffs, currency, election 2020, exchange rates, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Susan Page, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Vice Presidential debate, Xi JInPing, yuan

Between wall-to-wall coverage of the fly and the smirks, it was easy to lose sight of one of the most important reveals of Wednesday’s vice presidential debate: There’s now more reason than ever to believe that if Joe Biden becomes President, he’ll lift President Trump’s tariffs on China. And just as important, there’s now more reason than ever to believe that this is exactly what China is expecting.

Whether you believe that Trump-type China trade policies have been needed and/or have worked (two closely related but not identical matters), the likelihood that the tariffs would be toast is incredibly important because it begs the questions of whether the Democratic nominee has a coherent alternative China trade poicy in mind that can adequately serve U.S. interests (along with alternative investment and tech policies) and whether he’s capable of developing one.

As known by RealityChek regulars, I believe that on both scores, the answer is an emphatic “No.” But what’s more important right now is making clear that Biden running mate Kamala Harris’ debate performance strongly indicated that a major course change is coming.

First, though, a deserved swipe at moderator Susan Page’s China question. Page, the Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today, inadvertently reminded viewers (and should have reminded the Commission on Presidential Debates that organizes such events) why veteran campaign and White House reporters are almost uniquely unqualified to serve in these roles – at least if you’re looking for some minimally satisfactory discussion of issues.

For these journalists tend to be preoccupied with politics, not policy – and with the most superficial horse race or gossipy dimensions of politics at that. As a result, their substantive background is even less impressive than that usually boasted by colleagues who are supposed to know something about the issues they cover (a low bar).

So although Page deserves some credit for even bringing up the topic of China policy, no one should have been surprised by the Happy Talk nature of her question. I mean, here’s a country that’s been blamed across the American political spectrum for destroying huge numbers of American jobs with its wide-ranging trade predation, whose tech companies have been just as widely deemed as dangers to U.S. national security and American’s privacy rights, which increasingly is threatening U.S. allies and other countries in the “Indo-Pacific” region (foreign policy mavens’ latest name for the Asia-Pacific region, due to India’s, and which is treating its own population ever more brutally.

And Page’s question was dominated by claims that China is “a huge market for American agricultural goods” and “a potential partner in dealing with climate change and North Korea”? Not to mention suggesting that its role in bringing the coronavirus to the nation and world is nothing more than a charge leveled by President Trump?

All the same, Harris’ answer was what counted:

“Susan, the Trump administration’s perspective, and approach to China has resulted in the loss of American lives, American jobs and America’s standing. There is a weird obsession that President Trump has had with getting rid of whatever accomplishment was achieved by President Obama and Vice President Biden. For example, they created, within the White House, and office that basically was just responsible for monitoring pandemics. They got away, they got rid of it.”

Previously that evening, she argued that:

“You, [Vice President Mike Pence] earlier referred to, as part of what he thinks is an accomplishment, the President’s trade war with China. You lost that trade war. You lost it. What ended up happening is, because of a so called trade war with China, America lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. Farmers have experienced bankruptcy, because of it. We are in a manufacturing recession, because of it. And when we look at this administration has been, there are estimates that by the end of the term of this administration, they will have lost more jobs than almost any other presidential administration.”

Let’s leave aside the accuracy or relevance of any of these points – like the 300,000 manufacturing jobs claim loss claim that apparently comes from an economist who admits his 2016 predictions about economy’s performance during the Trump era were completely off-base; or the plainly nutty insistence that the Trump China policy cost American lives.

If Harris believes any of this, and especially that the trade war has been “lost,” then clearly the only important question about the China tariffs isn’t whether they’ll be lifted by a President Biden, but how fast.

Moreover, there’s abundant evidence that Biden fully agrees that these Trump measures have been seriously counter-productive. When asked in August if he’d “keep the tariffs,” he responded, “No. Hey, look, who said Trump’s idea’s a good one?” said Biden. “Manufacturing has gone into a recession. Agriculture lost billions of dollars that taxpayers had to pay.” In other words, most of the main anti-tariff arguments in two pithy sentences.

An aide to the former vice president tried to walk back these remarks, shortly afterwards, but Biden’s words perfectly fit journalist Michael Kinsley’s epic definition of what’s usually mischaracterized in American politics as a “gaffe”: an instance “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

Equally interesting and important with regard to the Biden-Harris China policies – one clear and one possible new sign that Beijing is actively rooting for their success, and assuming the tariffs’ removal. The first came during the vice presidential debate, when Chinese authorities censored some of Pence’s critical comments on China just as Chinese audiences were about to hear them, and then restored the signal in time for Harris’ rejoinder.

The second came last night, when in its first announcement since the end of its Golden Week holiday of a new exchange rate for China’s currency, the yuan, versus the U.S. dollar, Beijing revalued (i.e., made it more expensive compared with the greenback) by the greatest amount in four and a half years. The main reason – at least as I see it: China believes that Biden will win, and is permitting its currency to strengthen because any competitiveness loss by its exports resulting from this and even significant further revaluation will be more than offset by the removal of U.S. levies that have typically hit 25 percent.

Of course, I could be wrong about Biden. So could China. But keep in mind that the former Vice President boasts that he knows Chinese dictator Xi Jinping well because of all the time he’s spent with him. Does anyone seriously think that, by the same token, Xi hasn’t learned a thing or two about Biden as well?

Im-Politic: VP Debate Questions That Should be Asked

Tags

1619 Project, African Americans, Barack Obama, Biden, budget deficits, CCP Virus, censorship, China, Confederate monuments, Constitution, coronavirus, COVID 19, education, election 2020, Electoral College, filibuster, Founding Fathers, free speech, healthcare, history, history wars, Im-Politic, inequality, investment, Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, national security, Obamacare, police killings, propaganda, protests, racism, riots, semiconductors, slavery, spending, Supreme Court, systemic racism, Taiwan, tariffs, tax cuts, taxes, Trade, trade war, Trump, Vice Presidential debate, Wuhan virus

Since I don’t want to set a record for longest RealityChek post ever, I’ll do my best to limit this list of questions I’d like to see asked at tonight’s Vice Presidential debate to some subjects that I believe deserve the very highest priority, and/or that have been thoroughly neglected so far during this campaign.

>For Vice President Mike Pence: If for whatever reason, President Trump couldn’t keep the CCP Virus under control within his own White House, why should Americans have any faith that any of his policies will bring it under control in the nation as a whole?

>For Democratic candidate Senator Kamala Harris: What exactly should be the near-term goal of U.S. virus policy? Eliminate it almost completely (as was done with polio)? Stop its spread? Slow its spread? Reduce deaths? Reduce hospitalizations? And for goals short of complete elimination, define “slow” and “reduce” in terms of numerical targets.

>For Pence: Given that the administration’s tax cuts and spending levels were greatly ballooning the federal budget deficit even before the virus struck, isn’t it ridiculous for Congressional Republicans to insist that total spending in the stimulus package remain below certain levels?

For Harris: Last month, the bipartisan Congressional Problem Solvers Caucus unveiled a compromise stimulus framework. President Trump has spoken favorably about it, while stopping short of a full endorsement. Does Vice President Biden endorse it? If so, has he asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to sign on? If he doesn’t endorse it, why not?

For Pence: The nation is in the middle of a major pandemic. Whatever faults the administration sees in Obamacare, is this really the time to be asking the Supreme Court to rule it un-Constitutional, and throw the entire national health care system into mass confusion?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration offer free taxpayer-financed healthcare to illegal aliens? Wouldn’t this move strongly encourage unmanageable numbers of migrants to swamp U.S. borders?

For Pence: President Trump has imposed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of Chinese exports headed to U.S. markets. But U.S. investors – including government workers’ pension funds – still keep sending equally large sums into Chinese government coffers. When is the Trump administration finally going to plug this enormous hole?

For Harris: Will a Biden administration lift or reduce any of the Trump China or metals tariffs. Will it do so unconditionally? If not, what will it be seeking in return?

For both: Taiwan now manufactures the world’s most advanced semiconductors, and seems sure to maintain the lead for the foreseeable future. Does the United States now need to promise to protect Taiwan militarily in order to keep this vital defense and economic knowhow out of China’s hands?

For Pence: Since the administration has complained so loudly about activist judges over-ruling elected legislators and making laws themselves, will Mr. Trump support checking this power by proposing term limits or mandatory retirement ages for Supreme Court Justices? If not, why not?

For Harris: Don’t voters deserve to know the Biden Supreme Court-packing position before Election Day? Ditto for his position on abolishing the filibuster in the Senate.

>For Pence: The Electoral College seems to violate the maxim that each votes should count equally. Does the Trump administration favor reform? If not, why not?

>For Harris: Many Democrats argue that the Electoral College gives lightly populated, conservative and Republican-leaning states outsized political power. But why, then, was Barack Obama able to win the White House not once but twice?

>For Pence: Charges that America’s police are killing unarmed African Americans at the drop of a hat are clearly wild exaggerations. But don’t you agree that police stop African-American pedestrians and drivers much more often than whites without probable cause – a problem that has victimized even South Carolina Republican Senator Tim Scott?

For Harris: Will Biden insist that mayors and governors in cities and states like Oregon and Washington, which have been victimized by chronic antifa violence, investigate, arrest and prosecute its members and leaders immediately? And if they don’t, will he either withhold federal law enforcement aid, or launch such investigations at the federal level?

For Pence: Why should any public places in America honor Confederate figures – who were traitors to the United States? Can’t we easily avoid the “erasing history” danger by putting these monuments in museums with appropriate background material?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration support even peacefully removing from public places statues and monuments to historic figures like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because their backgrounds included slave-holding?

For both: Shouldn’t voters know much more about the Durham Justice Department investigation of official surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2015 and 2016 before Election Day?

For both: Should the Big Tech companies be broken up on antitrust grounds?

For both: Should internet and social media platforms be permitted to censor any form of Constitutionally permitted speech?

For Pence: Doesn’t the current system of using property taxes to fund most primary and secondary public education guarantee that low-income school children will lack adequate resources?

For Harris: Aren’t such low-income students often held back educationally by non-economic factors like generations of broken families and counter-productive student behavior, as well as by inadequate school funding – as leading figures like Jesse Jackson (at least for one period) and former President Obama have claimed?

For Pence: What’s the difference between the kind of “patriotic education” the President says he supports and official propaganda?

For Harris: Would a Biden administration oppose local school districts using propagandistic material like The New York Times‘ U.S. history-focused 1619 Project for their curricula? Should federal aid to districts that keep using such materials be cut off or reduced?

Now it’s your turn, RealityChek readers! What questions would you add? And which of mine would you deep six?

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: So Much for That Pre-Virus Trump Manufacturing Recession?

Tags

(What's Left of) Our Economy, Barack Obama, election 2020, Federal Reserve, GDP, gross domestic product, gross output, industrial production, Joe Biden, manufacturing, manufacturing recession, real GDP, real value added, tariffs, Trade, Trump, value added

A funny thing happened when the U.S. Commerce Department released its latest report on gross domestic product (GDP) by industry last Wednesday: Most of the evidence that American domestic manufacturing suffered a recession – even a mild one, as widely reported – before the CCP Virus struck disappeared.

The new figures also reveal that President Trump’s manufacturing record before most of the U.S. economy was literally ordered closed due to virus-related fears looks even better than previously thought in comparison with that of the Obama administration – in which the President’s Democratic rival for the White House, Joe Biden, served as vice president.

Focusing on this pre-virus data is anything but grasping at straws – unless you think the CCP Virus and its impact will last forever. For manufacturing’s fortunes have been closely connected to President Trump’s tariff-centric trade policies throughout his time in office because manufacturing is so thoroughly exposed to foreign competition both at home and abroad. And as this article (which featured unusual balance) made clear, recent evidence that industry had slumped last year – even before the virus’ arrival and the deep downturn it caused – was widely viewed as a major sign not only that the “trade war” was failing, and undermining Mr. Trump’s .broader determination to revive the sector.

Yet the new GDP by Industry numbers (which take the story through the second quarter of this year, and incorporate revisions going back to the first quarter of 2015 and which were part of a broader release of four different measures of manufacturing production) generally revised that recession away. So presumably, judgments about the effectiveness and impact of the Trump tariffs and similar trade decisions during normal economic times should turn much more positive.

Understanding that the federal government uses four different measures of manufacturing production is the key to understanding why those manufacturing recession claims now look largely mistaken, and why some uncertainty remains. The four measures are: gross output and inflation-adjusted (real) gross output, and value added and real value added. The latter two measures try to eliminate the double-counting in the gross output numbers that economists generally agree results from including in its results both the parts and components and other manufactured inputs of final products, along with the final products themselves.

As of now, the only one of these gauges that still shows a pre-virus Trump-era manufacturing recession (defined as two straight quarters of declining output) is current dollar (pre-inflation) gross output. According to these data, this downturn began in the second quarter of 2019 and continued through the end of the year – and of course into this year. But a recession doesn’t show up in any of the other measures, and its absence in the new real gross output figures is especially important, since that’s the measure that the Federal Reserve uses to measure manufacturing production in its closely followed monthly industrial production reports.

At the same time, those real gross output figures still leave one manufacturing production uncertainty remaining. For even though the Commerce Department’s tables, and their quarterly numbers, show no pre-virus Trump era recession by this measure, the Fed’s monthly numbers do. Specifically, they report three consecutive quarters of manufacturing production decrease last year – from the first through the third.

Yet the quarterly figures reported by the Commerce Department show that real gross output in manufacturing fell between the first and second quarters of 2019, but rose between the second and third before dropping again between the third and fourth. Even odder: Although these Commerce numbers show a weakening manufacturing output picture for the fourth quarter of last year, the Fed figures show a brighter one.

As for the comparison between administrations, here’s what the new numbers show for the two most comparable pre-virus periods (because they’re closest together in the same business cycle) – the last three years of the Obama administration and the first three years of the Trump administration. And they demonstrate that, whether due to Mr. Trump’s policies or not, industry performed considerably better during his watch. The Trump numbers are all the more impressive since 2019 was marked in part by major production woes at Boeing that greatly undercut the output numbers for the huge U.S. aerospace industry and its vast domestic supply chain.

last 3 Obama years first 3 Trump years

Gross output: -6.50 percent +12.71 percent

Real gross output: +1.40 percent +4.63 percent

Value added: +5.41 percent +11.72 percent

Real value-added: +2.33 percent +9.00 percent

This year, of course, has been terrible for domestic U.S. manufacturing. Between the first and second quarters, in real gross output terms it decreased by 1.03 percent at an annual rate between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2020, and by 9.47 percent between the first and second quarters.

Interestingly, put together, those are about the same as the declines suffered by the entire U.S. private sector (1.11 percent and 9.14 percent, respectively), even though manufacturing employment during this that period held up notably better than its overall private sector counterpart. During the first and second quarters of this year, the private sector lost 9.92 percent of its jobs, compared with 6.25 percent for manufacturing.

The GDP by Industry figures for the third quarter won’t be out until well after the election (December 22), so voters won’t be able to judge the full Trump manufacturing output record during the CCP Virus period. But from what’s known so far, it looks like something the President can point to during the rest of the campaign as a promise kept.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The New U.S. Jobs Report Underscores Manufacturing’s Resilience – & Possibly Tariffs’ Value

Tags

automotive, China, Jobs, machinery, manufacturing, manufacturing jobs, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, private sector jobs, tariffs, Trade, Trump

The headline figure for today’s September U.S. jobs report might have been lousy, but America’s manufacturers delivered excellent results, continuing a show of resilience that’s lasted throughout the CCP Virus era, and that could be closely connected with President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies.

Industry added 66,000 net new jobs from month to month – its best totally since June (now confirmed for the time being at a 333,000 gain. And revisions overall were positive.

August’s previously reported manufacturing jobs increase of 29,000 is now estimated to have been 36,000. And July’s results held at 41,000.

Moreover, although the automotive sector’s payroll improvements once more dominated the manufacturing results, the dominance was, as with the data since June, much less pronounced than during the spring. Combined vehicle and parts payrolls rose by 14,300.

Another encouraging development – the broad machinery sector, which is so closely connected with other segments of manufacturing as well as with much of the non-manufacturing economy (e.g., construction and agriculture) – added 13,800 new jobs on net. That’s a major acceleration from previous months’ results.

The other significant manufacturing monthly jobs winners in September included non-metallic mineral products (+6,200), the continually strong food products sector (+5,000), printing and related activities (+4,700), and fabricated metals products (4,200).

By far the the worst September sequential manufacturing jobs performance came in primary metals (-3,400), followed by the huge chemicals sector (-2,000).

September’s advances mean that manufacturing has now regained 716,000 (52.53 percent) of the 1.363 million jobs it lost in March and April, as the CCP Virus was peaking. (Those earlier job losses represented 10.61 percent of the last pre-virus – February – manufacturing employment level.)

The total decrease in nonfarm payrolls (NFP – the U.S. government’s definition of the nation’s jobs universe) in March and April was 22.16 milion – 14.53 percent of the February total and thus a steeper drop than suffered in manufacturing. Since then, 11.417 million, or 51.52 percent, of those jobs have been recovered.

As for private sector employment (which, unlike non-farm jobs, omits public sector employement, which is affected far more by government decisions rather than economic fundamentals), its levels fell by 21.191 million, or 16.34 percent , during the worst of the pandemic. Since April, 11.39 million, or 53.75 percent, of these jobs have been regained.

Given U.S. manufacturing’s extensive exposure to foreign competition, this relative strength is difficult to imagine absent Mr. Trump’s tariffs, especially the high levies remaining on most imports of goods from China. Without the tariffs, it’s easy to imagine a much greater flood of Chinese manufactures into the U.S. market once the People’s Republic and its factories emerged from their own pandemic shutdown, and depressing demand for domestic U.S. produced manufactures – as well as for the employees that make them.

Making News: Last Night’s National Radio Interview on China, Manufacturing, & the Election Now On-Line

Tags

China, election 2020, Gordon G. Chang, Joe Biden, Making News, manufacturing, reshoring, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, Trump

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast of my interview last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show is now on-line.  Click here to listen to a timely, wide-ranging discussion involving John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me covering the presidential election, China, trade policy, and bringing manufacturing back to America.

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

Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight, a New Podcast…& More!

Tags

Angela Merkel, Cato Journal, CCP Virus, China, collusion, coronavirus, COVID 19, election 2020, Germany, Gordon G. Chang, Joe Biden, journalism, Making News, manufacturing, Market Wrap with Moe Ansari, natural gas, Nord Stream 2, presidential debate, recession, recovery, reshoring, Russia, stimulus package, Ted Galen Carpenter, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade war, Trump, Trump-Russia, Wuhan virus

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return to national radio tonight when I guest on The John Batchelor Show.  The subjects for John, co-host Gordon G. Chang, and me will be China, trade, manufacturing, and the election.

The pandemic is still forcing John and Gordon to pre-record segments, so I’m not yet sure about air-time.  But it seems that you can listen live to the show on-line at this all-purpose link starting at 9 PM EST.  And of course, if you can’t tune in, I’ll post a link to the podcast as soon as one’s available.

In addition, yesterday, I was interviewed on the popular Market Wrap with Moe Ansari radio show on the election (including the debate!), trade policy, the future of the entire U.S. economy, the fate of CCP Virus relief legislation, and a surprising recent example of collusion with Russia.  To listen to the podcast, click here and then on the show with my name on it.  My segment starts at about the 23:38 mark.

Finally, my friend Ted Galen Carpenter has just published in the Cato Journal a fascinating piece on the history of U.S. news coverage of U.S.-China relations – which certainly has seen its ups and downs in recent decades.  It was great, moreover, to see Ted cite two of my writings along the way.  Here’s the link.

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Some Fishy New Official U.S. Trade Figures

Tags

{What's Left of) Our Economy, Trade, trade deficit, GDP, exports, gross domestic product, imports, goods trade, services trade, Commerce Department, real GDP

Life as a blogger just gets more unpredictable all the time. Here I was this morning all set to try to figure out whether I’d write about the presidential debate last night or about the official new overall U.S. economic growth (actually contraction) numbers or about the official new figures for how domestic manufacturing fared. And I find my interest most piqued by apparent mistakes in those overall data on the shrinkage of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the second quarter.

As RealityChek regulars know, when I cover the GDP figures (which tell us how much in the way of goods and services the U.S. economy has turned out in a given time period, and how it’s changed over time), I tend to focus on the trade numbers that help make up these total figures. And I like to look at revisions, because the U.S. Commerce Department, which tracks these trends, doesn’t get it right the first time, or even the second time (because new information is being constantly received), and because it’s right up front about making these imperfections clear. (That’s why several revisions of these data are issued in the first place.)

Today’s report on the economy’s performance in the second quarter of this year was the third such report, and the final verdict for the time being. (So-called “benchmark” revisions will be coming down the road, going back several years, which speaks volumes about Commerce’s determination to get it right.)

And the “headline” trade number showed that between the first quarter and the second quarter, the total U.S. trade deficit declined from $788.0 billion to $775.1 billion. (All these trade figures are adjusted for inflation and presented at annual rates.) That’s an improvement. But it’s not as much of an improvement as the previous GDP report showed. According to that release, which came out about a month ago, the total second quarter real annualized trade deficit was $760.9 billion.

Or was it?

I can’t recount exactly what spurred me to look into the underlying figures, as opposed to taking the data’s accuracy for granted, as I normally do. But I began to check them out. And here’s what I found for that previous set of second quarter figures.

Last month’s GDP report judged that after-inflation U.S. goods exports for the second quarter totaled $1.3519 trillion annualized and U.S. goods imports were $2.3487 trillion. To get the balance, subtract second number from the first and you get a deficit of $996.8 billion.

For services, the second quarter results were previously reported as price-adjusted exports of $591.5 billion and imports of $372.8 billion. Doing the arithmetic produces a real services trade surplus of $218.7 billion.

To get the total trade deficit, the $218.7 billion services surplus has to be subtracted from the $996.8 billion goods deficit. And that number comes out to -$778.1 billion – not -$760.9 billion.

This difference is by no means major. But if my math is accurate, it reveals a final (for now) inflation-adjusted second quarter trade deficit that improved sligthly over the previously reported figure, rather than worsened.

In other words, the previous GDP report estimated that the second quarter real trade deficit improved on the first quarter’s results by a margin of $788 billion to $760.9 billion. But it looks like it should have reported a much less impressive narrowing – to just $778.1 billion. As a result, the $775.1 billion second quarter trade deficit figure reported this morning is a slightly better number than the incorrect previous estimate – not a worse result, as that incorrectly reported previous number indicated.

But guess what? That latest second quarter figure doesn’t add up, either. Specifically, today’s report pegs combined U.S. goods and services exports at $1.9274 trillion in real terms on an annual basis, with goods exports judged to be $1.3472 trillion and services exports reported as $582.1 billion. Add them up and you get $1.9293 trillion, not $1.9274 trillion.

On the import side, the Commerce Department now says that the second quarter total is $2.7025 trillion annualized, and that it’s comprised of $2.3480 trillion worth of goods imports and $372.1 billion worth of services imports. That adds up to $2.7201 trillion, not $2.7025 trillion. As a result, the total trade deficit was actually $790.8 billion annualized, not $775.1 billion (the difference between the new $2.7201 trillion total import figure and the $1.9293 trillion total export number).

Therefore, not only did the real trade deficit total worsen over the figure reported last month (from $778.1 billion to $790.8 billion, not to the $775.1 billion reported today). It also worsened from the first quarter’s $788.0 billion number.

At which point, it pains me to report that that first quarter total doesn’t add up, either.

The bottom line for me is that I’ll keep reporting the headline trade figures as they’re presented in the GDP reports by the Commerce Department. But I’ll be even more cautious than usual about assuming that they’re even accurate in measuring changes of direction, much less precise amounts. And I’ll be wondering if the rest of the federal government’s economic data is any better – at least until I can figure out what’s going on here.