Making News: Back on National Radio Tonight Talking Ukraine Fallout, Inflation, and China

Tags

cost of living, energy prices, food prices, inflation, Lehman moment, Making News, nuclear war, stagflation, Ukraine, Ukraine War

I’m pleased to announce that I’m scheduled to return tonight on the nationally syndicated “Market Wrap with Moe Ansari.” Our scheduled subjects: the possibility I discussed recently that the U.S.’ strong support of Ukraine could trigger the kinds of global calamities it seeks to prevent, whether America’s torrid inflation has peaked, and what’s ahead for China’s increasingly troubled economy.

“Market Wrap” airs weeknights between 8 and 9 PM EST, these segments usually begin midway through the show, and you can listen live on-line here.

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

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

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence of Biden-Flation’s Toll

Tags

American Rescue Plan, Biden administration, Covid relief, energy prices, Federal Reserve, food prices, hunger, inflation, monetary policy, progressives, recession, supply chain, Ukraine War, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Left-of-center critics of the Federal Reserve’s inflation-fighting efforts keep insisting that risking recession to tame prices would unnecessarily harm the most vulnerable Americans and their struggling working class counterparts. Instead,  many have claimed that living costs can be cut sufficiently by forcing greedy corporations to charge less through windfall profits taxes, price controls, and the like.

And they’ve bridled in particular at charges that the Biden administration’s American Rescue Plan (ARP) greatly worsened the problem by handing trillions of dollars of CCP Virus relief – and therefore purchasing power – to U.S. consumers well after economic growth had already rebounded strongly and unemployment had already nosedived.

Any development that can engulf the gargantuan American economy, like historically high inflation, almost by definition has many different causes. But anyone doubting the economic overheating role of the ARP should check out the graph below, which is found in this Reuters piece from over the weekend.

The article adds to the evidence that still-towering inflation rates are devastating low-income Americans by super-charging the prices of that most basic of basics: food. But the graph makes clear as can be how the ARP contributed to the problem.

As it shows, prices of food (the darker line) began taking off just about the time that the ARP’s strings-free child tax credit payments started to be sent out (July 15, 2021, to be precise) – and not just to the needy, but to considerably better off households as well. Not so coincidentally, the share of American families with children reporting to U.S. Census Bureau surveys being “sometimes or often” short of food (the lighter line) started taking off soon after. And also noteworthy – these food price rises began many months before Russia’s February, 2022 invasion of Ukraine began playing its own major food inflation role. 

As the article also emphasizes, between 2020 and 2022, “as pandemic restrictions eased, so did the appetite for congress and some states to fund hunger prevention efforts.” But continuing federal purchases for “pantries, schools and indigenous reservations” were needed in the first place largely because food – not to mention other necessities – kept becoming so much more expensive.

The lesson here isn’t that no pandemic assistance should have been provided at all. After all, genuine suffering was widespread in its early phases and no one knew how long they would last. And the Fed’s left-of-center critics are correct that ongoing CCP Virus-related and Ukraine War-related energy supply disruptions have greatly boosted prices recently, too.

But as noted here previously, the supply- and demand-side roots of inflation are very closely related (because businesses can be relied on to continue raising prices as long as they can find enough buyers, and to cut them when customers start balking). Moreover, although in economists’ lingo, some prices are “inelastic” (because they’re for goods and services that are essential enough to prevent purchasing cutbacks even after major price increases), when they rise high enough, they can still foster lower prices for other purchases that are deemed less important.

Therefore anything, like big government checks, that fills consumer pockets will strongly tend to spur inflation sooner or later. So when help does need to be provided, it should be much more precisely focused on relieving genuine privation than pandemic relief was.

Even more important: The inflationary effects of supporting household consumption can be offset – and are best offset – by policies to support more production. When the Fed’s left-of-center critics start addressing defects in that supply side of the economy, rather than trafficking in gimmicks sure to exacerbate them, their complaints about excessive central bank monetary medicine will deserve a much bigger audience. In the process, they’ll be able to deliver lasting assistance to those whose plight they rightly emphasize.        

Glad I Didn’t Say That! Energy Security One Tanker at a Time

Tags

energy, energy crisis, energy prices, Germany, Glad I Didn't Say That!, inflation, natural gas, Olaf Scholz, Persian Gulf, Ukraine, Ukraine War

”Germany secures more gas shipments as [Chancellor Olaf] Scholz visits [Persian] Gulf”

 —Associated Press, September 25, 2022

Number of gas shipments Scholz has secured during his visit to the Persian Gulf: 1

–Bloomberg.com, September 25, 2022

 

(Sources: “Germany secures more gas shipments as Scholz visits Gulf,” by Frank Jordan, Associated Press, September 25, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-boris-johnson-united-arab-emirates-germany-b2ff121c9b7e3931ab3c89acdf76beaa and “Germany Secures Just One Tanker of Gas During Scholz’s Gulf Tour,” by Birgit Jennen and Omar Tamo,” Bloomberg.com, September 25, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-25/germany-nabs-uae-gas-deal-as-energy-squeeze-tightens?srnd=premium&leadSource=uverify%20wall)

Following Up: Podcast Now On-Line of TNT Radio Interview

Tags

abortion, China, conservatism, culture wars, election 2022, electric vehicles, energy, Europe, Following Up, gay marriage, inflation, left-wing authoritarianism, midterms 2022, migrants, national conservatism, National Conservatism Conference, national security, politics, Sanctuary Cities, The Hrjove Moric Show, TNT Radio, Trade, Ukraine War

I’m pleased to announce that the podcast is now on-line of my appearance Tuesday night on “The Hrvoje Moric Show” on the internet network TNT Radio. Click here for a timely discussion on the future of American conservatism, on the culture wars that should and shouldn’t be fought, and a on a wide range of other domestic and international subjects, both strategic and economic.

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

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: The Other Scary Ukraine War Threat

Tags

energy, energy prices, global financial crisis, globalism, hunger, Lehman Brothers, Lehman moment, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Ukraine War, Vietnam War, vital interests, Western Europe

Take it from me – the words “Lehman” and “moment” are words that no one should ever want to see in the same sentence ever again. Yet they’ve been making a collective comeback lately (see, e.g., here, here, and here), signaling in the process that the determination of the United States and other countries to help Ukraine achieve its goal of expelling Russia from the territory it’s lost could backfire disastrously.

This specific risk has emerged not because the conflict could spread beyond Ukraine’s borders and embroil the big new concentrations of U.S. and other NATO military forces right next door – and therefore all too easily escalate to the nuclear level. It’s also emerged because of the growing economic hardship and potential political instability in major world regions created by the disruption of global energy and food trade triggered by Russia’s invasion and the sanctions it’s triggered.  

The phrase “Lehman moment” refers to the time when the national and global financial systems and economies nearly collapsed because so many of the world’s major banks and other lenders had engaged in such reckless practices, and because they were so interconnected that the failure of one – America’s Lehman Brothers – threatened to topple the whole house of cards that had been created.

Today’s Lehman moment is feared to be coming in Europe’s energy sector – also dominated by huge, closely connected institutions and also endangered by contagion. But this time the culprit hasn’t been greedy executives or asleep-at-the-switch regulators. It’s been the price of natural gas. The Russian invasion of Ukraine itself, the duration of the fighting, Russian supply curbs and threats of cut-offs have pushed it so high that many European utilities have been forced to buy the increasingly scarce fuel on the very expensive spot market and sell it to customers at the much lower prices stipulated by the contracts they’ve signed. (See here for a useful explanation of all of the above.)

As with the original Lehman moment, government bailouts are likely to save the day – at least for the foreseeable future. But the costs are shaping up to be astronomical, and even if they’re paid by all of the continent’s well- and less well-off countries alike, enormous national debts are sure to grow. Moreover, Europe’s near-term energy, and overall economic, future looks so grim because major shortages and towering prices this winter seem both inevitable and bound to bring on a serious recession and all the suffering and anxiety that accompany such downturns.

That sure sounds like a formula for even more political instability than Europe has already seen lately, including a loss of public faith in national and regional establishments and institutions of all kinds, and a further strengthening of the sort of political movements – on the right end of the political spectrum in particular – that globalists keep warning are grave dangers to the democracy and even the peace the continent has enjoyed until Russia’s attack on Ukraine.

Nor is Ukraine War-rooted turmoil confined to Europe. As the Biden administration has just warned, “protracted conflicts – including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” have been developments that have “disrupted global supply chains and dramatically increased global food prices.” As a result, “world leaders [need] to act with urgency and at scale to respond…and avert extreme hunger for hundreds of millions of people around the world.”

Sub-Saharan Africa, one of the areas of greatest risk, has (rightly) never been seen as a high U.S. foreign policy priority. The other area, though, is the Middle East, which has become much less important even to America’s economic well-being because of the energy production revolution at home, but which continues to attract considerable attention from globalist U.S. leaders.

Hence the backfire risk – and a gigantic irony. Globalist backers of the current Ukraine strategy justify it as necessary to protect what they call a “rules-based international order” they believe has been essential for preventing great power conflict, as well as for promoting impressive degrees of prosperity and democracy around the globe. I’d give far more credit to the balance of nuclear terror that’s prevailed for nearly all of that period, but that’s not the main point.  The main point is that, along with great power conflict, the widespread international turbulence being fueled by the duration of the Ukraine War per se is another major geopolitical nightmare that globalism has striven to avert.  

It’s true that incurring great risks to protect specific, concrete interests the U.S. considers vital – like the security of Western Europe and, more recently, Taiwan (because of its leadership in manufacturing the world’s most advanced semiconductors) – by definition are worth running. This logic also holds for objectives like fostering and maximizing stability the world over, even though they’ve always been more dubious because they’re so much gauzier and less realistic. For whatever the damage possible from attempting to safeguard any of these interests, the term “vital” means that failure can generate even greater dangers – particularly national survival and independence.

But running such risks on behalf of Ukraine’s independence – which was never seen as remotely vital U.S. interest even at the height of the Cold War, which was habitually described as a Manichean struggle for the entire world’s future – is a different matter altogether, and indeed makes no sense at all.

During the Vietnam War, a U.S. Army officer is supposed to have told a reporter after one battle that “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.” The Lehman moment references and mounting signs of tumult in several major regions long seen by Washington as bearing at least significantly and even vitally on America’s safety and well-being indicates how close U.S. Ukraine policy – even if it simply prolongs heavy but geographically contained fighting – is moving toward achieving that absurdly self-destructive goal.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: More Evidence That Stimulus-Bloated Demand is the Main U.S. Inflation Driver

Tags

CCP Virus, China, consumer price index, consumers, coronavirus, COVID 19, Covid relief, CPI, demand, inflation, Jobs, population, retirement, stimulus, Sun Belt, supply, supply chains, The New York Times, Ukraine War, workers, Wuhan virus, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The New York Times just provided some important evidence on the big role played by super-charged consumer demand in super-charging inflation – this article showing that the Sun Belt has been the U.S. region where prices have been rising fastest.

The finding matters because a debate has been raging among politicians and economists over the leading causes of multi-decade high inflation rates with which Americans have been struggling over the last year and a half or so.

On one side are those who claim that overly generous government stimulus spending is the main culprit, because it’s increased U.S. buying power much faster than the supply of goods and services has grown. On the other side are those who focus on the inadequate amount of goods and services that companies are turning out, stemming from supply chain disruptions rooted in the stop-and-go nature of the American economy from successive waves of pandemic downturns and slowdowns to the Ukraine war to China’s ridiculously draconian Zero Covid policies.

Clearly, all these developments deserve blame, but the regional disparities in inflation rates provide pretty convincing support for emphasizing bloated demand.

Here’s the latest annual disparity in the headline Consumer Price Index as presented in the Times article:

U.S. total:    8.5 percent

South:          9.4 percent

Midwest:     8.6 percent

West:          8.3 percent

Northeast:   7.3 percent

It correlates roughly, by the way, with the data in this report last spring from the Republican members of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

And here’s a principal, demand-related reason: The Sun Belt states of the South and West have been the U.S. states that have gained the most population during the pandemic period. Indeed, according to the latest U.S. Census data, eight of the ten states with the fastest overall population growth between July, 2020 and July, 2021 was a southern or southwestern state, and the same holds for five of the ten states with the fastest population growth in percentage terms.

It’s true that population growth often increases supply, too – by boosting numbers of workers. The U.S. government doesn’t break out job creation along the above regional lines, but a look at individual state totals doesn’t conclusively brand the Sun Belt as an national employment leader. On average, relatively speaking, Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas have created more jobs from the pandemic-period bottom in April, 2020 through last month, as shown in this table:

U.S. total:    +16.87 percent

California:   +17.98 percent

Florida:        +21.05 percent

Texas:          +17.31 percent

Arizona:       +16.02 percent

Nevada:        +30.92 percent

But don’t forget – many of these states have outsized travel and tourism sectors, and you know what happened to those activities during the worst of the pandemic. So in part, their employment bounced back so quickly because they had plummeted so dramatically as the CCP Virus’ first wave spread.

Moreover, many of these states are big retirement destinations, too, and as their overall population increase makes clear, this trend has intensified since the pandemic arrived. Of course, the workers in any given state don’t only sell goods and services to that state’s population, and a given state’s residents don’t only buy goods and services from providers in that state. Yet it’s certainly noteworthy that the number of the Sun Belt states’ consumers rose faster relative to the national average than the number of Sun Belt workers.

And in this vein, Sun Belt inflation probably is also particularly hot partly because so many of the newcomers are wealthy. Indeed, one recent study found that, early in the pandemic, “Of the 10 states with the largest influx of high-earning households, nine are located in the Sun Belt, including the six-highest ranked states, starting with Florida.”

Because they bring so much spending power to their new home states, these wealthier Americans naturally tend to drive prices up unusually fast.

As the Times article notes, some prominent reasons for scorching Sun Belt inflation are unrelated to population-driven demand growth – notably much lower population densities that generate more gasoline-using driving.  But the impact of population movement and all the disproportionately high inflation it’s clearly creating is hard to ignore.  And if a consumption shock has spurred so much inflation in the Sun Belt, why wouldn’t it be affecting prices this way in the rest of the nation, too?          

 

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: An Encouraging June Swoon for the U.S. Trade Deficit

Tags

China, energy, exports, GDP, goods trade, gross domestic product, imports, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, non-oil goods deficit, recession, services trade, supply chain, Trade, trade deficit, Ukraine War, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This morning’s official data (for June) show that U.S. trade was firing on practically all cylinders that month. In addition, the shrinkage in the combined goods and services deficit to the lowest level ($79.61 billion) since last December ($78.87 billion) was clearly attributable not only or even mainly to developments holding the nation’s imports down – ranging from a slowing in American economic growth (and therefore in most consumption) to the wounds China is inflicting on its export-heavy economy due to its insanely over-the-top Zero Covid policy to separate renewed backups at U.S. ports.

Instead, it’s also happening because many exports are up (to record levels), and that’s especally impressive because the dollar is so strong (which places U.S.-origin goods and services at price disadvantages all over the world, including in their home market) and because global growth is getting so weak (which tends to dampen demand for America’s offerings). And P.S. – these rising exports encompassed more than just the U.S. natural gas and other fossil fuels in such demand due to the Ukraine war and related sanctions on Russia.

The June figures reported one important exception, though: a monthly surge in the goods trade deficit with China to its highest level since November, 2018.

The June sequential drop in the overall trade deficit of 6.23 percent, from May’s $84.91 billion, was the third straight monthly decrease – a streak that hasn’t been seen since the second half of 2019, when the shortfall dropped sequentially six consecutive times – between June and November. Even better, the May total trade gap was revised down by a healthy 0.75 percent.

The deficit in goods trade – which dominates U.S. trade flows – tumbled 4.74 percent on month from $104.43 billion to $99.48 billion, its lowest level since last November. It, too, decreased sequentially for the third straight month, the first such stretch since December, 2019 through February, 2020 – just before the CCP Virus’ arrival in force began roiling and distorting the entire U.S. economy.

Meanwhile, the longstanding surplus in trade in services – which has been hit particularly hard by pandemic-related lockdowns and more cautious consumer behavior – advanced by 1.76 percent, from May’s upwardly revised (by 0.58 percent) $19.53 billion to $19.87 billion.

Combined goods and services exports hit their fifth straight monthly high in June, rising 1.67 percent from May’s upwardly revised $256.52 billion to $260.80 billion.

Energy goods exports were indeed way up – with natural gas overseas sales jumping by 26.51 percent, fuel oil exports increasing by 8.66 percent, and miscellaneous petroleum products climbing by 3.97 percent.

But they were far from the only significant export winners. For example, machinery and equipment exports soared by 13.78 percent on month in June; of foods, feeds, and beverages exports improved by 5.81 percent; and high tech goods’ foreign sales gained 4.51 percent.

In fact, goods exports overall also reached unprecedented heights for a fifth straight month in June, rising 1.97 percent sequentially from $179.51 billion to $183.04 billion.

As for services, their foreign sales hit their third straight all-time high, growing 0.97 percent on month, from $77.01 billion to $77.76 billion.

Overall imports, as mentioned, inched down sequentially – by 0.30 percent – in June, from $341.43 billion to $340.41 billion.

Another small monthly June decrease was registered by goods imports, which sagged by 0.50 percent, from $283.94 billion to $282.52 billion.

Only services imports broke this pattern: They set their own fifth consecutive record, increasing by 0.70 percent, from $57.49 billion to $57.89 billion.

The news in manufacturing trade was good, too – but only in comparison to industry’s recent alarming performance. The sector’s chronic, mammoth trade deficit was down 1.92 percent on month in June, from $132.60 billion to $130.05 billion. But this most recent total was still the third highest ever, after March’s $142.22 billion and the May figure.

Manufacturing joined the list of June export winners, as foreign sales increased sequentially from $112.15 billion to a new record $114.78 billion.

Manufactures imports inched up by mere 0.04 percent on month in June, from $244.75 billion to $244.83 billion. But this number was the second worst on record, after March’s $256.18 billion.

All told, at the statistical midway point of the year, the manufacturing trade deficit is running 22.13 percent ($756.53 billion vs $619.42 billion) ahead of last year’s record total. As a result, it’s all but certain that the United States in 2022 will rack up its fifth straight $1 trillion-plus manufacturing trade gap.

Year-to-date manufacturing exports are up 16.26 percent – from $548 billion to $637.12 billion. But the much greater amount of manufacturing imports has risen even faster – by 19.38 percent, from $1.16742 trillion to $1.39365 trillion.

Until very recently in the pandemic period (and its possible aftermath), as noted here, domestic manufacturing output and employment have held up remarkably well despite U.S.-based industry’s ballooning trade gap. The reason, as I pointed out here, is that Americans’ demand for manufactured goods has grown so strongly that domestic producers have been able to boost output even as imports flooded in much faster.

But with domestic manufacturing output decreasing in inflation-adjusted terms in both May and June, it looks like an economy-wide U.S. slowdown is weakening this demand, and that U.S.-based industry is finally paying a price for the share of its home market that it’s been losing.

The June China trade front news was even worse than that for manufacturing. The U.S. goods deficit with the People’s Republic soared by 17.13 percent sequentially, from $31.54 billion to $36.95 billion. That level is the highest since November, 2018’s $37.69 billion, and the increase the biggest since the 20.45 percent recorded in May, 2020 – when China and the United States were making recoveries from the first CCP Virus wave.

U.S. goods exports to China slumped by 5.22 percent, from $12.32 billion to $11.68 billion, while imports popped by 10.85 percent, from $43.86 billion to $48.63 billion – the highest total since last December’s $49.53 billion.

At least as important, this bilateral goods trade deficit is now up 27.51 percent on a year-to-date basis, as opposed to the 24.34 percent increase over the same period for its closest global proxy – the U.S. non-oil goods deficit.

For most of the time since the imposition of the first China tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump in early 2018, this “Made in Washington” trade deficit (so named because by omitting services and oil trade, it tracks the U.S. trade flows most heavily influenced by U.S. trade policy) has been rising more slowly than the China goods deficit. Yet the gap, as noted in last month’s trade report, has been narrowing lately, and the June figures signal that it might be gone for the time being.

In general, though, the June trade report was a pleasant surprise given the currency and global growth headwinds mentioned above. Additional cause for some optimism:  The latest official release on the size of the U.S. economy in inflation-adjusted terms told much the same story of the trade gap narrowing for the “right reasons.”

But can the trade deficit keep falling due mainly to better exports, rather than following the typical slowdown and recession pattern of shrinking mainly due to the falling exports caused by weaker demand? In other words, can the falling deficit contribute to the quality of U.S. growth rather than simply reflect a feebler economy? Those are different questions altogether.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Another Dreadful U.S. Consumer Inflation Report

Tags

Commerce Department, consumer price index, consumers, core inflation, cost of living, CPI, demand, energy, Federal Reserve, food, inflation, Labor Department, monetary policy, PCE, personal consumption expenditures index, prices, supply chains, Ukraine War, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Optimism about U.S. inflation took another blow yesterday morning – though it shouldn’t have been unexpected – with the release of the latest data on the Federal Reserve’s favorite measure of price changes. I said “shouldn’t have been unexpected” because, as Fed Chair Jerome Powell and others have noted, this gauge and the higher profile Consumer Price Index (CPI) put out by the Labor Department normally track each other pretty closely over the long run, and those CPI results were deeply discouraging.

Nonetheless, latest results from the Price Indexes for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) monitored by the Commerce Department matter because they strongly confirmed the latest CPI figures – which were pretty awful – starting with the month-to-month changes for the entire economy.

In June, headline PCE inflation shot up sequentially by a full one percent – much faster than May’s 0.6 percent and indeed the fastest rate not only throughout this latest high-inflation period, but the fastest since it increased by one percent in September, 2005.

But another observation should make even clearer how unusual that monthly headline increase was. The Commerce Department has been keeping these data since February, 1959. That’s 749 months worth of results through last month. How many times has monthly headline PCE inflation been one percent or higher? Twelve. And the all-time record is just 1.2 percent, hit in March, 1980, and February and March, 1974.

The annual figures were no better, and RealityChek regulars know that they’re more reliable than the monthlies because they measure changes over a longer time period, and therefore smooth out short-term fluctations.

June’s 6.8 percent rise was the strongest of the current high inflation era, and a significant pickup from May’s 6.3 percent. And it looks even worse when the fading baseline effect is taken into account. The June yearly jump in headline PCE came off a June, 2020-21 increase of four percent. So that year’s June PCE rate was already twice the Federal Reserve’s two percent annual inflation target.

By comparison, headline PCE this March was only a little lower than the June result – 6.6 percent. But the baseline figure for the previous March was only 2.5 percent. That rate was still higher than the Fed target, but not by much. So arguably unlike the price advances of June, this March’s inflation reflected some catching up from price increases that were still somewhat subdued due to the economy’s stop-go recovery from earlier during the pandemic.

Core PCE was lower by both measures, because it strips out the food and particularly energy prices that have spearheaded much headline inflation, and that are excluded supposedly because they’re volatile for reasons having little to do with the economy’s fundamental vulnerability to inflation. But here the monthly figures revealed new momentum, with the June seqential increase of 0.6 percent twice that of May’s 0.3 percent, and the highest such number since May and June of 2021.

Before then, however, core inflation hadn’t seen a monthly handle in the 0.6 percent neighborhood since September and October of 2001, which registered gains of 0.6 and 0.7percent, respectively.

On an annual basis, June’s core PCE increase of 4.8 percent was slightly higher than May’s 4.7 percent, but well below the recent peak of 5.3 percent in February. But the baseline effect should dispel any notions of progess being made. For June-to-June inflation for the previous year was 3.5 percent – meaningfully above the Fed’s two percent target. Core annual PCE inflation for the previous Februarys was just 1.5 percent – meaningfully below the Fed target.

As with most measures of U.S. economic perfomance, an unprecedented number of wild cards that can affect both PCE and CPI inflation has rendered most crystal balls (including mine) pretty unreliable. To cite just a few examples: Will China’s Zero Covid policy keep upending global supply chains and thus the prices of Chinese exports? Will the ongoing Ukraine War have similar impacts on many raw materials, especially energy? Will the Federal Reserve’s tightening of U.S. credit conditions per se bring inflation down significantly in the foreseeable future by dramatically slowing the nation’s growth? Will high and still soaring prices, coupled with vanishing savings rates, achieve the same objective if the Fed’s inflation-fighting zeal wanes? Or will the still huge amounts of money in most consumers’ bank accounts along with continuing robust job creation keep the demand for goods and services elevated for the time being whatever the Fed does?

Here’s what seems pretty certain to me: As long as that consumer demand remains strong, and as long as producer prices keep jumping, businesses will pass these rising costs on to their customers and keep consumer inflation worrisomely high. That seemed to be precisely the case in the last two months, with a torrid May read on producer prices being followed by the equally torrid June consumer inflation reports. So unless this wholesale inflation cooled a great deal this month, I’d expect at least another month of red hot consumer inflation. That producer price report is due out August 11.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Is the U.S. Trade Deficit’s Latest Dip More than Recession-y?

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, economic growth, exports, GDP, goods trade, gross domestic product, imports, inflation-adjusted growth, real GDP, real trade deficit, recession, services trade, supply chains, Trade, trade deficit, Ukraine War, Zero Covid, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Although yesterday’s official figures show that the U.S. economy has now shrunk for the second straight quarter, the nation’s chronic and immense trade deficit played a diametrically different role in producing the final results. Whereas during the first quarter of this year, the trade gap’s widening was the difference between expansion and contraction of the gross domestic product (GDP – the standard measure of the economy’s size), during the second quarter (at least according to the new advance figures), its narrowing kept the drop in GDP from being considerably worse.   

The tumble of 0.94 percent at annual rates revealed in GDP after inflation (the most widely followed measure, and the GDP gauge that will be used throughout this post unless otherwise specified) came on top of a 1.58 percent decrease in the first quarter. As many have observed, two consecutive quarters of real GDP decline has long been a common definition of a recession.

This time around, however, a 4.53 percent fall-off in the inflation-adjusted trade shortfall, from a record $1.5447 trillion at annual rates to $1.4747 trillion, generated 1.43 percentage points of sequential growth in the second quarter. Although the new deficit was still the second biggest on record, the improvement prevented the quarter’s GDP drop from reaching 2.37 percent – which would have been the worst such performance since the nearly 36 percent crash dive recorded between the first and second quarters of 2020, when the CCP Virus pandemic and its impact on the economy were at their worst.

This year’s second quarter, moreover, marked the first time that America’s trade flows had added to growth, and the biggest such contribution in absolute terms, since that spring of 2020, when the pandemic and related mandated and voluntary curbs on economic activity greatly depressed U.S. imports. In relative terms, the second quarter’s trade contribution to growth was the best since the second quarter of 2009, near the end of the Great Recession that followed the global financial crisis. During that quarter, real GDP sank at an annual rate of 0.68 percent, but trade generated 1.53 percentage points of growth.

By contrast, during the first quarter, the trade deficit’s expansion subtracted a whopping 3.23 percentage points from the change in GDP – which turned what would have been a 1.65 percent sequential increase into that 1.58 percent shrinkage.

The reduction in the trade deficit also enabled the shortfall to decrease as a percentage of the entire economy from the first quarter’s all-time high of 7.83 percent to 7.49 percent. Further, the 4.34 percent sequential decrease represented by this progress was the biggest since the 9.45 percent decline in the fourth quarter of 2019 – just before the pandemic arrived state-side in force.

At the same time, at 7.49 percent of real GDP, the second quarter trade deficit was still the second highest ever, and since that immediately pre-pandemic-y fourth quarter of 2019, the trade shortfall has ballooned by 73.99 percent. As of the first quarter, it had swollen during this period by 82.24 percent.

Ordinarily, the reasons for this trade deficit decline would be a clearcut positive:  Even though the gap usually narrows as the economy weakens, it stemmed from  total exports (counting goods and services) advancing much faster than the much larger amount of imports. But as the nation and world are still in the CCP Virus and in the middle of the Ukraine War, with all the supply chain turbulence they’ve both brought on and will surely keep bringing, drawing strong conclusions still seems unusually hazardous.   

Those total U.S. exports improved by 4.22 percent on quarter, from $2.3613 trillion at annual rates to $2.4410 trillion – the highest such total since the $2.5533 trillion recorded in the fourth quarter of 2019, just before the pandemic hit the U.S. economy. The results were especially encouraging since total exports fell sequentially in the first quarter (by 1.23 percent), and given the global economic slowdown and the dollar’s strengthening to roughly 20-year highs versus nearly all currencies. This move in and of itself put U.S.-origin goods and services at a price disadvantage versus foreign competitors the world over.

Combined goods and services exports are now down just 3.61 percent since that fourth quarter of 2019, versus the 7.52 percent calculable last quarter.

Total imports inched up just 0.76 percent, although the new $3.9357 trillion annualized level did amount to a sixth straight record and an eighth consecutive quarterly increase. These purchases have now climbed by 15.37 percent during the pandemic era, versus the 14.85 percent calculable last quarter.

The goods trade deficit, meanwhile, declined by 3.96 percent sequentially, from the first quarter record total $1.6572 trillion annualized to $1.5916 trillion. This drop was the first since the peak pandemic-y second quarter of 2020, and the biggest since the 6.52 percent shrinkage in the fourth quarter of 2019. The goods trade gap, consequently, has grown by 48.55 percent since the end of 2019, as opposed to the 54.68 percent calculable last quarter.

Goods exports in the second quarter rose 3.69 percent from the first quarter’s $1.7577 trillion at annual rates to a new record $1.8225 trillion – surpassing the previous all-time high of $1.8046 trillion set in the first quarter of 2019. These new results also mean that goods exports have finally exceeded pre-pandemic levels (by 2.24 percent). After the first quarter ended, they were still down 1.39 percent since the fourth quarter of 2019.

Goods imports, however, recorded their first quarterly decrease since the third quarter of 2021 – though only from a worst ever $3.4149 trillion annualized to $3.4141 trillion. But these imports are still 19.63 percent higher than in that immediate pre-pandemic fourth quarter of 2019.

The services trade surplus improved by 8.60 percent between the first and second quarters, from $109.3 billion at annual rates to $118.7 billion. Reflecting the unusually hard hit delivered by the pandemic to the service sector, however, this surplus is still 47.64 percent lower than its level just before the virus began seriously affecting the U.S. economy. That is, it’s been nearly cut in half.

Services exports in the second quarter actually increased sequentially for the third straight time. And the 5.56 percent advance, from $631.5 billion annualized to $666.6 billion was the strongest since the 5.83 percent jump in the fourth quarter of 2006. Nonetheless, services exports remain 13.84 percent off their immediate pre-pandemic level, versus the 18.38 percent calculable last quarter.

Services imports are now back above their pre-pandemic levels, too (by 1.65 percent), having risen 4.92 percent sequentially in the second quarter, from $522.2 billion at annual rates to $547.9. The improvement, moreover, was the fastest since the 7.80 percent recorded in last year’s third quarter.

As mentioned above, usually it’s unambiguously good news for both trade, and to a lesser extent, the entire economy, when the trade deficit diminishes because exports are up considerably faster than imports. It’s normally even better news when these kinds of results are delivered in challenging international and exchange rate environments. But with the Ukraine War and China’s Zero Covid policy still distorting U.S. and global trade flows and unlikely to end anytime soon, unbridled optimism is hard to justify. So like the Federal Reserve, RealityChek will remain data dependent as it tries to detemine the outlook for U.S. trade’s fortunes.