(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.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why China Trade Will Long Remain a Loser for Americans

Tags

China, export-led growth, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, trade surpluses, Trefor Moss, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since the United States decided to expand trade and commerce with China as fast as possible, numerous books and studies (including mine – see here and here) have tried to make the case first that this approach was certain to work out disastrously for the domestic economy, and later, that this scenario was actually unfolding.

If only when the major decisions were being made, or when they still could have been reversed relatively painlessly, could something like this new Wall Street Journal article have been published. For Trefor Moss’ report on China’s struggling export industries makes unusually clear that if pre-Trump presidents and Congresses (representing both Democrats and Republicans) truly tried to use trade policy to strengthen America’s productive core and its workers, facilitating business with China would have been one of their lowest priorities.

The reason, as Moss indicates: China’s economic strategy has always been so dependent on boosting exports much more than imports – in the words, on generating and increasing trade surpluses – that ever greater bilateral economic ties were never capable of creating more opportunities for domestic companies and workers than they wiped out.

Indeed, decades after Washington bipartisanly began to champion “coupling” the two countries, and throughout which Americans were constantly promised that China’s was going to become an economy driven more by domestic rather than by U.S. and other overseas demand, and therefore a huge winner for America on balance, Moss’ piece shows that these promises look more specious than ever. For even today, entire geographic regions of the People’s Republic and entire Chinese industries literally have nothing to do with supplying the needs and desires of Chinese customers, and everything to do with servicing foreign – and especially U.S. – markets.

Four particularly revealing observations in Moss’ article:

“Many of the products made [in the huge export hub of Yiwu], such as Christmas decorations and other low-cost, labor-intensive commodities, simply aren’t needed domestically in significant quantities. Only a small percentage of China’s 1.4 billion people are openly Christian, according to the U.S. human-rights group Freedom House.”

>”’Yiwu’s challenge is that the domestic market doesn’t have the stomach to consume all these products,’ said Dan Wang, chief economist at Hang Seng Bank China. ‘They’re not really suitable for domestic use.'”

>”Even getting products that Chinese people do want into domestic circulation will take time since Yiwu’s merchants lack local distribution connections, according to Andrew Batson, director of China research for Gavekal, a Hong Kong-based research firm.”

>”While consumption as a share of gross domestic product has risen over time in the U.S., reaching 68% in 2018, China’s has steadily declined to just 39%.”

Not explained by Moss, however, (and I’m not being critical here) is the fundamental explanation for this Chinese export orientation – and throughout the countries’ leading production cities and regions, not just Yiwu: It’s not simply a preference of the Chinese regime’s. It’s an iron necessity for achieving the country’s ambitious economic development goals, and as a result, for safeguarding China’s rulers paramount priority – keeping the populace happy enough to keep this dictatorship in power.

For as I pointed out most recently in this post, however much wealth it’s gained in recent decades, China’s population collectively still remains too poor by itself to fuel the growth needed to continue raising living standards robustly. Indeed, Chinese incomes have long remained so low in absolute terms that even after its lengthy run of spectacular progress, China still needs foreign incomes to fill the demand gap left by its inability to consume adequately.

In recent years, much of official Washington, and even the Swamp full of hangers on and consultants and lobbyists that surrounds it, have become aware that national security worries call for rethinking longstanding U.S. trade policies with China.  Moss’ article is a valuable reminder that the purely economic case for a trade policy reversal remain compelling, too.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump is Winning the Trade and Decoupling Wars

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, decoupling, FDI, foreign direct investment, goods trade, merchandise trade, MSCI, non-oil goods trade deficit, pension funds, Rhodium Group, Securities and Exchange Commission, tariffs, Trade, Trade Deficits, trade war, Trump, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s become increasingly clear in the last few days that President Trump’s trade war with China and his apparent efforts to decouple the U.S. and Chinese economies have achieved real successes. Just why exactly? Because of a recent flurry of claims in the Mainstream Media that the trade war has been an ignominious defeat for the President and his tariffs, and that decoupling can only backfire on America if it’s taken too far (an outcome that’s supposedly imminent). (See here, here, and here in particular.)

As RealityChek regulars know, such media doom- and fear-mongering – spread both by journalists and by the purported experts they keep quoting who have been disastrously wrong literally for decades about trade and broader economic expansion with China – are now well established contrarian indicators. And here’s some of the key data that these proven failures have overlooked.

Let’s start with the least controversial measure of decoupling – two-way trade. Let’s generally use the end of the previous administration as our baseline, since decoupling really is a Trump-specific priority. And let’s generally end with the end of 2019, not only because it’s our last full data year, but because the coronavirus pandemic clearly is distorting the data, and won’t be with us forever (although some of its effects on supply chains and the like might – also because of reinforcement from the trade war). We’ll also stick with goods trade, since detailed service trade figures are always late to come out, and because they’re rarely major subjects of trade policy.

Between 2016 and 2019, combined US goods imports from and goods exports to China actually grew by 2.92 percent. So where’s the decoupling, you might ask? It becomes clear from using economic analysis best practices and putting these figures into context – mainly, the performance of the entire economy.

And in this case and many of those below, it’s crucial to know that the economy grew during this period, too. As a result, in 2016, this two-way goods trade (also called merchandise trade) amounted to 3.08 percent gross domestic product (GDP) – the nation’s total output of goods and services. In 2019, it was down to 2.60 percent. That is, like a supertanker, this trade doen’t turn around right away.

Therefore, it is indeed legitimate to fault Mr. Trump for claiming that trade wars are easy to win. But the supertanker is turning. And the impact on the economy? In 2016, it expanded by 2.78 percent. In 2019? 3.98 percent. So not much damage evident there. (All these figures are pre-inflation figures, because detailed inflation-adjusted trade figures aren’t available.)

Similar trends hold for the U.S.-China goods trade deficit, which the President views as the most important scorecard for his China trade policy success. Between 2016 and 2019 in absolute terms, it barely budged – dipping by just 0.47 percent. That could be a rounding error.

But viewed in the proper context, this trade deficit fell from 1.85 percent of GDP to 1.61 percent. And again, the economy grew much faster in 2019 than in 2016.

It’s still possible to ask what any of the trade decoupling had to do with the President’s ballyhooed tariffs. But the only reasonble answer? “A lot.” That’s because even after the signing of the so-called Phase One U.S.-China trade deal in January, levies of 7.5 percent remain on categories of imports from China that have been totalling about $120 billion annually lately, and tariffs of 25 percent remain on $250 billion more. (That’s most of the $451.65 billion in total goods imported by the United States from China in 2019.)

For comparison’s sake, between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. worldwide non-oil goods trade deficit – that’s the deficit that’s most impacted by trade policy decisions like tariffs, and the portion of the deficit that’s most like US-China trade – rose by 24 percent. That’s more than 50 times faster than the increase in the China goods deficit.

So there can’t be any serious doubt that the Trump China tariffs have worked both directly (by keeping Chinese goods out of the U.S. market) and indirectly (by encouraging companies that had been producing in China for export to the United States to move elsewhere). Moreover, since that “elsewhere” is always to much friendlier countries, that’s a plus for Americans even though the decoupling by most accounts has only returned modest amounts of jobs stateside.

Moreover, there’s a strong case to be made that the Trump tariffs on China have prevented the U.S. economy’s CCP Virus-induced recession from being much worse. That contention is borne out by the fact that, as RealityChek reported earlier this month, the latest available apples-to-apples statistics show that China’s goods trade surplus with the world as a whole had increased by some 25 percent between July, 2019 and July, 2020. But during that period, the China goods surplus with the United State fell by about 18 percent.

As a result, according to the standard way of measuring the economy and how developments in areas like trade affect its growth or shrinkage, China over roughly the last year has been growing at the expense of the world as a whole, but not at America’s. Indeed, quite the opposite. After decades of trade with China slowing U.S. growth, such commerce is now supporting growth.

The decoupling picture, however, wouldn’t be complete without investment flows. Here, on one front, the disengagement has been even more extensive. The consulting firm Rhodium Group does a good job of crunching the numbers on foreign direct investment (FDI) – those transactions that involve so-called hard assets, like real estate and factories and warehouses and entire companies, as opposed to portfolio investment, which involves stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.

By a happy coincidence, Rhodium has just issued its latest report, which takes us through the first half of 2020. Yes, that covers the virus era, when it’s natural to expect all kind of economic and commercial activity to decline. But the pre-virus era trends will become clear enough, too.

According to Rhodium, two-way FDI flows between the United States and China in the first six months of this year (measured by the value of completed deals) hit their lowest level since the second half of 2011. And the peak came during comparable periods between early 2016 and late 2017 – when these investments were running nearly four times their current levels. Moreover that peak, not so coincidentally, bridged the Obama-Trump transition.

Chinese FDI into the US during that first half of this year actually rose a great deal – from $1.3 to $4.7 billion. But this increase resulted entirely – and then some – from a single purchase by the big Chinese social media company WeChat of a 10 percent stake in the U.S. company Universal Music. Without that transaction, Chinese flows into the US would have dropped, and even the current somewhat artificially high level is only about a fifth as high as its peak – hit in late 2016. So you can see a decided Trump effect here, too.

U.S. FDI flows into China have held up better, if that’s the term you want to use. But they were off 31 percent between the second half of 2019 and the first halfof this year – to $4.1b. And their peak level – hit in 2014 – was $8.5b. So that’s another big Trump-related drop.

One disturbing counter-trend that the Trump administration has been too slow to address: There’s abundant evidence that U.S. financial investment into China – buys of assets like stocks and bonds – keeps surging.

One indication: According to the Financial Times earlier this month, since the Wall Street firm MSCI in June, 2017, first announced plans to include Chinese domestically listed “A-share” companies into one of its widely followed indices, “roughly $875bn in foreign investment has flowed into Chinese equities through stock connect programmes linking Hong Kong with onshore bourses in Shanghai and Shenzhen.”

And although the U.S. share is difficult to quantify, between private investors and state-level government workers’ pension funds, this analysis from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission makes clear that it’s considerable.  (Due to Trump administration pressure, the body overseeing federal pension plans’ investments has delayed a decision to channel funds into the aforementioned MSCI index.)   

So can anyone reasonably claim “Mission accomplished” for the Trump trade and decoupling policies? Not yet. But is a “job well done so far” conclusion merited? Certainly for anyone who’s not Trump-ly Deranged.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Spot-On, if Belated, Warning About Experts

Tags

conflicts of interest, economists, experts, Immigration, Mainstream Media, MSM, Robert Samuelson, The Washington Post, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you’re a normal person – meaning someone who doesn’t follow the U.S. economy especially closely – you have no reason to care much about the news that long-time economics columnist Robert J. Samuelson announced his retirement this week. In fact, even though I follow the economy really closely, I don’t much care either about his departure as such, either.

Nonetheless, one point Samuelson made in his farewell piece in the Washington Post does deserve everyone’s attention, and that was the (reluctant) swipe he took at the character of economists. And this indictment presumably includes many of the discipline’s leading lights, because the observation was made in the context of his claim that they’ve taught him a lot, and because his position gave him regular access to so many of them.

But first, some full disclosure. I’ve dealt with Samuelson on a steady basis literally for decades, mainly because pundits like him have a powerful megaphone, and therefore convincing him that some finding made by me or one of my various colleagues was worth covering boosted the odds that policy makers would pay attention.

He’s been refreshingly respectful and reasonably open-minded, and occasionally took the bait. So I was grateful for that. Otherwise, he’s been a decidedly faithful transmitter of the national, and especially academic and think tank version of, economic policy conventional wisdom, including on trade policy. In that respect, I found him less impressive. The only exception that come to mind – he’s repeatedly, and quite emphatically, challenged the notion that the more immigrants the United States admits, legally or otherwise, the more prosperous the nation as a whole will be. (See, e.g.. here.)

As a result, although in his swan song Samuelson presented some major lessons he says he’s learned about the economy and life in general, they’re hardly gold mines of insight. But what he said about economists was a true shocker, and something to which everyone should pay attention – his fellow journalists first and foremost.

As implied above, Samuelson didn’t exactly relish being critical. For he began by insisting that “With some exceptions, most [of the economists in his Rolodex] are intelligent, informed, engaged and decent. In my experience, this truth spans the political spectrum.”

But in the very next sentences, he maintained that

“But it’s not the only truth. Another is this:  Economists consistently overstate how much they know about the economy and how easily they can influence it.  [Samuelson’s emphasis.] They maintain their political and corporate relevance by postulating pleasant policies.”

And a few column inches down, he added that “the quest for economic status and power pushes economists and their political sponsors toward exaggerated promises that lead to widespread public disappointment.”

In other words, according to Samuelson, the economists with whom he’s continually consulted (and who are mainstays for pretty much every other leading economic journalist and pundit you can think of) are generally nice people personally, but “consistently” they succumb to temptations to cast aside intellectual honesty. And the references to “political and corporate relevance” and “political sponsors” aren’t far from charges of outright corruption.

The 75-year old Samuelson closed this final column with an observation that hit particularly close to home for this 66-year old: “I am a man of the 20th century, but we are now facing the problems of the 21st century, which demand new policies and norms.”

I’m trying to keep up – how well I’m succeeding of course ultimately is up to you. But when it comes to identifying the need for new policies and norms, one area in which I think I’ve done a pretty good job has been pointing out that the economics and business press should do a much better job revealing the actual and potential conflicts of interests of the experts it repeatedly treats as dispassionate truth-seekers. (See, e.g., here.)

So it was gratifying to see someone as established as Samuelson reinforcing this case, however implicitly – even if he waited till he was walking out the door.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: New Fed Figures Show the U.S. Manufacturing Recovery is Proceeding Nicely

Tags

automotive, CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, Federal Reserve, inflation-adjusted output, lockdowns, manufacturing, manufacturing production, real growth, shutdown, stimulus package, Trump tariffs, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

It’s not apparent from the overall numbers, but the most important takeaway from this morning’s monthly Federal Reserve report on U.S. manufacturing production is that American industry has continued a steady comeback from the ravages of the CCP Virus and the government-induced shutdown of much of the U.S. economy. And the continuing healthy pace of this comeback is all the more impressive given the stop-and-start nature of so many of the economic restrictions imposed by Washington, D.C. and by the states and localities, and given the recent uncertainty about a new virus-relief bill.

The overall Fed numbers, as indicated above, do show a manufacturing bounceback that’s losing noteworthy steam. In August (the latest available data month), inflation-adjusted manufacturing output grew by 0.96 percent sequentially. That’s definitely a weaker pace than July’s growth (now pegged at 3.97 percent on month), much weaker than June’s 7.64 percent monthly burst, and well short of May’s 3.91 monthly percent production rise.

Grounds for encouragement, though, are justified even by these aggregate figures, as revisions for recent months generally were positive, and July’s was really positive – that month’s previously estimated manufacturing real growth was 3.41 percent.

But the best and most important news comes from the numbers on manufacturing production outside the automotive sector. As known by RealityChek regulars, the wild sequential swings in output from vehicle and parts makers have dominated the Fed manufacturing production reports for nearly the entire CCP virus period. (See., e.g., last month’s post on this subject.) So important though automotive is – both because of its size per se and because it affects the rest of its industry due to its big domestic supply chain – the non-auto results arguably provide a more accurate picture of U.S. manufacturing’s fundamentals. And this picture looks remarkably good, and still displays significant momentum.

Ex-auto, as the cognoscenti put it, constant dollar manufacturing production increased by 1.40 percent on month in August. So since that’s much faster than overall manufacturing’s performance (up 0.96 percent) that means automotive output fell (by 2.13 percent, specifically).

The August sequential improvement for ex-auto manufacturing, moreover, isn’t dramatically lower than July’s (1.93 percent). And it compares pretty well with June’s (now estimated at 3.82 percent) and May’s (now judged to be 2.12 percent).

Even better, all the pre-July results have been revised up except for May’s.

When all is said and done, the August Fed report underscores just how resilient domestic manufacturing has been despite the formidable CCP Virus challenges (which also include major economic slowdowns in the foreign markets U.S. industry has always relied on for much of its sales). As of August, overall price-adjusted American manufacturing output was just 6.39 percent below its levels in February (the final month before virus effects began impacting the economy). Manufacturing ex-auto’s real production was just 7.04 percent less than in February. And automotive’s after-inflation production was a mere 1.98 percent below that February benchmark.

And another factor to consider: Since China’s has been the world’s first major economy to resume growth since the virus struck, and since its recent growth has been so markedly export-led, think of how much worse U.S. industry’s state would be had the steep Trump tariffs on hundreds of billions of Chinese goods normally sent to the United States not been imposed, or left almost completely in place by the Phase One trade deal.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: A Backfiring Attack on Trump’s Trade & Manufacturing Policies

Tags

Barack Obama, CCP Virus, coronavirus, COVID 19, Economic Policy Institute, election 2020, EPI, Great Recession, Joe Biden, manufacturing, offshoring, Trade, Trump, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

For the record, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has done terrific work over decades on the domestic economic impact of U.S. trade policy decision and trade flow, and it’s been great to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its economists and ther staff during many major trade policy battles starting with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Which is why I have been absolutely baffled by a recent EPI report that shows signs of furnishing some major trade policy talking points for Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s presidential campaign.

Most puzzling of all: a table in the August 10 study purporting to show that (a) “President Trump’s erratic, ego-driven, and inconsistent trade policies have not achieved any measurable progress” in reversing the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing jobs and the related ,”decline of American manufacturing”; and in fact (b) that “Offshoring and the loss of manufacturing plants have continued under Trump, notwithstanding U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s claim that the administration’s trade policy is helping U.S. workers.”

Here are the main table figures that cover the first two Trump years and the record of its predecessor, the Obama administration (whose Vice President of course was Biden). I started with 2010 because during 2009, the first year of the Obama presidency, the nation was mired in a Great Recession for which he deserves absolutely no blame. In addition, EPI stops the table at 2018 because factory numbers afterwards aren’t yet available. (The gross output figures have been added by me to make further comparisons possible.)

             Change in factory #s            Change in mfg jobs        mfg real gross output

2010:            -11,283                               -755,000                        +5.37 percent

2011:              -5,155                              +222,000                        +2.89 percent

2012:             -2,938                               +223,000                        +1.93 percent

2013:             -4,220                               +101,000                        +2.86 percent

2014:             -4,056                               +121,000                        +0.79 percent

2015:             -2,129                               +192,000                        +0.54 percent

2016:                -999                                 +33,000                        +0.04 percent

2017:                -782                                 +50.000                        +0.99 percent

2018:             -1,005                               +216,000                        +2.31 percent

The first point that needs to be made is that, as must be obvious, these numbers show absolutely no consistent relationship between the annual change (and in this case, decline) in the number of the nation’s “manufacturing establishments” (what these official figures call factories) and the annual change in manufacturing payrolls.  

For example, in each of these years, lots of factories kept closing, yet manufacturing employment kept rising. It’s true that rates of annual change have varied for both categories during this period. But these variations don’t seem to hold any significance, either. If they did, why would the number of closures fall notably between 2011 and 2012, while those years’ manufacturing workers’ numbers rise by almost exactly the same amount? And why the big difference between the number of closures in 2011 and 2012 on the one hand, and in 2018, on the other, and the close resemblance of the employment gains for each of those years?

Further, although it’s true that factory closures continued during the first two Trump years, the annual rate of closures slowed dramatically. Indeed, from 2010 through 2016, the average annual closure rate was 4,397. For 2017-18, this rate was 893.5. That’s not progress? And let’s be fair and not count 2010, because the manufacturing job losses of the Great Recession continued through its early months. The 2011-16 annual average factory closure number was still much higher (3,249.5) than during the Trump years.

Not weird enough for you? According to these EPI figures, despite factories closing at a much faster rate during the Obama years than during the Trump years, manufacturing employment grew faster. From 2011 through 2016, manufactring jobs grew by an annual average of 148,670. The comparable number for the first two Trump years was only 133,000.

At the same, time, this seemingly paradoxical relationship between numbers of factories and numbes of workers isn’t so completely paradoxical after all.  For example, new kinds of machinery and other efficiencies have surely enabled many domestic manufacturers to consolidate their physical footprint, and actually boost production and hiring. Alternatively, manufacturing companies can increase their capacity by expanding existing plants rather than build new facilities.        

Speaking of production, if we’re going to talk about the decline of American manufacturing, we need to talk about output levels and their changes, too. After all, it’s tough to boost or even maintain manufacturing workers’ numbers if production isn’t rising. Yet the annual growth numbers I’ve added to the table (which represent inflation-adjusted gross output), don’t show much of a relationship with closure numbers or employment numbers, either – and that’s the case even leaving out the quasi-manufacturing recession year 2010.

Still, don’t the EPI figures make clear that manufacturing hiring during the first two Trump years was weaker than during the Obama years? They sure do. As mentioned above, from 2011 through 2016, manufacturing payrolls grew by an average of 148,670 each year versus the Trump annual average in 2017 and 2018 of 133,000.

But are the EPI numbers the right numbers? I decided to check since the 50,000 manufacturing jobs increase presented for 2017 seemed way off to me. And there’s strong evidence that my suspicions were justified. Here’s what I found on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. They represent December-to-December changes, and they’re seasonally adjusted. But the unadjusted numbers aren’t terribly different:

2011:    +207K

2012:    +158K

2013:    +123K

2014:    +209K

2015:     +70K

2016:        -6K

2017:   +185K

2018:   +264K

According to these data, the average annual manufacturing employment increase during the Obama years was 126,830 (again, recession-y 2010 is left out) and the annual average for the first two Trump years was 224,500. So advantage Trump here. The current administration enjoys a big edge even adding in 2019, when industry’s payrolls rose by only 59,000. That performance brings the Trump annual average down to 169,330 – still considerably higher better than the Obama years’ performance.

The EPI report correctly notes that 2020 has been much worse so far for manufacturing employment, and reasonably argues that even though the CCP Virus pandemic has been mainly responsible, “If President Trump wants to take credit for the job growth at the tail end of a decade of recovery from the Great Recession, then he must also own this collapse, thanks to his administration’s mismanagement of the pandemic.”

But if we’re going to start blaming non-trade policy-related factors for changes in manufacturing performance measures, let’s at least be consistent. For manufacturing hiring and growth (1.30 percent) undoubtedly were held down in 2019 by the safety woes experienced by aerospace giant Boeing – and therefore by its vast domestic supply chain – and by the six-week strike at General Motors.

Combine those developments with the inevitability of manufacturing inefficiencies as companies and entire industries adjust to a dramatically different trade policy environment, and the Trump record looks remarkably good. Unless EPI (and other Trump critics) believe that a painless way to transform U.S trade and manufacturing policies (which the institute strongly supports) has ever been possible?

President Trump was clearly (though anything but disastrously) mistaken when he claimed in early 2018 that trade wars are “easy to win.” Let’s hope that the EPI report isn’t a sign that a Biden administration and other critics would peddle the same pipe dreams.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: China’s Trade is Killing Global – but not U.S. – Growth

Tags

CCP Virus, China, coronavirus, COVID 19, goods imports, goods trade, goods trade deficit, goods trade surplus, merchandise trade, tariffs, Trade, trade war, Trump, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Let’s say you don’t care about America’s still-huge and longstanding trade deficit with China. You should still be up in arms about the trade figures that just came out from the People’s Republic. For they make clear that China this year has been growing at the expense of the rest of the world just as the pandemic it spawned has destroyed massive amounts of income, jobs, and growth around the world.

At the same time, these data should cheer anyone who’s more America First-inclined, since they also provide compelling evidence that President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policy toward China has delivered considerable benefits to the United States during this crisis.    

It’s a maxim of conventional economics that changes in a country’s trade balance determine its role in adding to or subtracting from global growth. More specifically, national economies whose trade balances are worsening (either because surpluses are shrinking, surpluses have become deficits, or deficits have increased) are adding to output worldwide. That’s because such countries are consuming more of other economies’ output, and therefore expanding the demand for these goods and services, more than their own goods and services are taking share of other countries’ markets.

Improving trade balances (either because deficits are shrinking, deficits have become surpluses, or surpluses are increasing) subtract from global growth because the opposite effects are created.

The China trade data I’m talking about only cover its goods (or merchandise) trade. But since China’s two-way global goods trade (totaling $2.1431 trillion for the first half of this year) is nearly seven times greater than its two-way global services trade ($316.27 billion), it’s clearly worth focusing on.

And here’s what the numbers show: From January through August of this year, China’s goods trade surplus with the entire world added up to $327.92 billion. For the same eight-month period of last year, the number was $262.29 billion. That’s an increase of just over 25 percent, and a growth drag this year’s global econmy can ill afford. (Here’s the source.)

In this vein, it’s more than a little interesting that between January and July, 2019 and January and July, 2020, China’s goods trade surplus with the United States fell by 18.14 percent. (The U.S. figures for August won’t be released until early October.) In other words, merchandise trade with China has added to America’s growth.

Of special importance, year-to-date, U.S. goods imports from China are off by 14.71 percent. Globally, according to this source, imports from China worldwide are down only 4.11 percent. (These last numbers vary, but only in a minor range.) Which seems to be a ringing endorsement of President Trump’s stiff and sweeping tariffs on imports from the People’s Republic. Why else would the pattern of China’s trade with the United States this year differ so dramatically from the pattern of China’s global trade?

Meanwhile, on a net basis, it’s not like other countries are making out like bandits in the wake of China’s weak performance. The total American non-oil goods deficit (which RealityChek likes to call the Made in Washington deficit, because it’s the portion of U.S. trade flows most heavily influenced by trade policy, and which comprise the best proxy for U.S.-China trade flows) is up year-to-date, but only by about a half a percent. And U.S. non-oil goods imports are off by 9.79 percent globally – considerably less than the decrease in imports from China.

It’s true that the pace of U.S. imports from China has picked up lately. Indeed, on a monthly basis, they’ve doubled between March and July – nearly twice the 28.34 percent advance in global imports from China during this period. But given the relatively rapid U.S. economic recovery, it’s legitimate to ask where these trade figures would be with no tariffs. Moreover, it’s way too soon to know into which what kind of post-virus-normal and post-Phase-One-trade deal normal U.S.-China, and China’s global trade flows will settle.

So far, however, the numbers tell a reasonably clear story. During the pandemic, China’s trade has strongly subtracted from global growth with countries that have not launched a trade war, and actually added to growth with the country that has.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: For Now, the U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Picture is Normalizing

Tags

automotive, Employment, government workers, Jobs, manufacturing, non-farm employment, non-farm jobs, non-farm payrolls, private sector, public sector, stimulus package, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The total U.S. economy and employment pictures sure aren’t anywhere close to normal, but this morning’s official jobs report (for August) looked awfully familiar to anyone who’d been following payrolls in manufacturing before the CCP Virus struck. And the noteworthy result:  Industry continues to be a jobs outperformer during this pandemic period.     

In contrast to the enormous, and largely automotive-driven swings of previous months, U.S.-based manufacturers added 29,000 net new jobs last month compared with July’s levels. Automotive payrolls shrank by only 5,300.

Moreover, as with the overall non-farm economy (the U.S. government’s definition of the American employment universe), revisions to recent manufacturing results were slightly negative. July’s initially reported 26,000 manufacturing employment increase was revised up to 41,000, but June’s previous estimate of 357,000 (itself revised up) is now judged to have been just 333,000.

This time around, domestic industry’s biggest sequential employment winners in absolute terms were food products (up 12,100), plastics and rubber products (up 6,500), and fabricated metal products (up 5,900). The biggest losers were transportation equipment (whose 8,400 loss includes the 5,300 combined figures for vehicles and parts), non-metallic mineral products (down 4,400), and printing (down 4,100).

In all, from February (the last full month before virus-related shutdowns began dramatically depressing national economic activity) through its April bottom, manufacturing payrolls fell by 1.363 million, or 10.61 percent). Since then, industry has regained 643,000 (or 47.18 percent) of those positions. As a result, manufacturing employment is now 5.60 percent lower than in February, before the virus arrived.

Underscoring manufacturing’s relative resilience during the pandemic-induced recession, between February and April, the American private sector shed 21.191 million workers – a drop of 16.34 percent. Since then, 10.473 million net jobs have been restored (nearly half – 49.42 percent– of the total lost). As a result, private sector employment is now 8.26 percent below those pre-CCP Virus February levels.

In addition, from February through April, total non-farm employment sank by 22.34 million, or 14.64 percent. Since then, a net of 10.611 million (or 47.50 percent) of these jobs have come back, leaing non-farm payrolls 7.57 percent short of their pre-pandemic totals.

But since non-farm payrolls include public sector jobs, this performance will surely weaken if the Democratic-Republican standoff in Washington over economic stimulus stays unresolved for much longer, since one of the main bones of contention is federal aid for state and local governments whose tax revenues have been decimated by the virus and lockdowns.

Further, public sector jobs losses (and the service cuts sure to accompany them) inevitably will bleed into the private sector, as government is an important customer of what the private goods and service companies provide – both in terms of procurement, and in terms of how much government workers and their households consume.

Consequently, without a stimulus agreement, as unsatisfactory as this latest U.S. jobs report was, it might wind up being fondly remembered – including by manufacturers.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Why Trump’s Solid Trade Record Survives the Lousy New U.S. Trade Report

Tags

automotive, Boeing, CCP Virus, cell phones, civilian aircraft, coronavirus, COVID 19, Made in Washington trade deficit, manufacturing, manufacturing trade deficit, non-oil goods deficit, shutdowns, tariffs, trade deficit, trade war, Trump, U.S. International Trade Commission, Wuhan virus, {What's Left of) Our Economy

This is how bad this morning’s official US. trade figures (for July) looked at first glance for folks like me – who value trade deficit reduction, and believe that trade policies like President Trump’s can make a real difference: When I began examining the data, even though I kept telling myself, “It’s only one month’s worth of statistics,” I scarcely knew what to despair about most.

Yet the “at first glance” point matters a lot. Because when you dig into the weeds, you’ll find plenty of evidence making clear that much of the deterioration had nothing to do with trade policy at all. And the evidence comes in two tables in these monthly trade reports on which I usually pass: Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8. They cover U.S. exports and imports of goods “by End-Use Category and Commodity” and they provide the report’s most detailed picture of which areas of the economy have performed best and worst trade-wise during the month covered.

They’re not as detailed as those available from the U.S. International Trade Commission’s interactive search engine, but that database isn’t yet updated, so let’s go with what we have to begin seeing exactly where the biggest goods trade deficit increases came in July. (Goods trade, also called merchandise trade, makes up the bulk of U.S. trade flows, and it’s relatively unaffected by the policy decisions made by Washington – including by trade-minded Presidents like Donald Trump – mainly because international negotiations to deal with barriers in these sectors are still in pretty early stages)

Again, from the 30,000-foot level, the July results look terrible. The goods trade shortfall hit $80.91 billion – $9.26 billion, or 12.92 percent, higher than the June figure of $71.65 billion (which mercifully was revised down slightly). That increase proportionately is dwarfed by the record 31.60 jump of March, 1993. But that nearly 18-year old all-time high can be disregarded pretty easily, both because the law of small numbers is at work here (i.e., when you’re dealing with small absolute numbers, relatively small absolute changes can result in outsized percentage changes), and because back in those days, U.S. trade flows were heavily affected by oil trade – another sector of the economy rarely subject to trade policy decisions.

So what mainly accounted for that $9.26 billion merchandise import surge? First of all, we know that more than all of it ($9.94 billion) came in non-oil goods trade. As known by RealityChek regulars, those are the trade flows most heavily influenced by U.S. trade policy. So this increase in the “Made in Washington” deficit seems to reflect badly on decisions made in Washington. Drilling down a little deeper, manufacturing emerges as an even bigger culprit. Its $89.15 billion June trade gap ballooned to $104.63 billion in July – a rise of $15.48 billion. Not so incidentally, that manufacturing trade deficit is the worst ever in U.S. history, eclipsing the $101.65 billion recorded for October, 2018.

Nearly as interesting, though: China trade – where the President has been fighting a war – was not the biggest problem, as the manufacturing-dominated goods gap with the People’s Republic rose by just $3.22 billion. And neither the 11.35 percent on-month increase nor the $31.62 billion total goods gap was anywhere close to a record. 

So we’re back to manufacturing, and figuring out where the big deficit widening took place. Here’s where Exibits 7 and 8 matter.

What they tell us is that the monthly worsening of the merchandise trade deficit was highly concentrated in a handful of industries, and that these latest developments either have little or nothing to do with the Trump tariffs, or actually  demonstrate their effectiveness in widely overlooked ways.

Most relevant of all here is the automotive sector. Between June and July, the deficit in vehicles and parts combined increased by just under $3.20 billion. That represents more than a fifth of the sequential worsening of the manufacturing trade deficit, and nearly a third of the difference in the non-oil goods deficit. But the problem says little about the Trump trade policies, and a great deal about the reopening of U.S. automotive sector in late spring and early summer after the CCP Virus led to its almost complete shutdown in March and April.

From May through July, total American automotive production nearly tripled in real terms, according to the Federal Reserve’s industrial production reports. So it’s no surprise that since production in this industry is so globalized, and thus so many of its parts and materials (and the parts of the parts) are still imported, its trade deficit ballooned, too.

Then there are cell phones. Between June and July, the trade deficit here rose by just under $1.44 billion – 9.30 percent of the increase in the manufacturing deficit, and 14.48 percent of the problem in non-oil goods.

The cell phone category in the monthly trade releases also includes “other household goods” – one of the reasons I don’t love these numbers like I love those available from the International Trade Commission. But it’s reasonable to suppose that most of these goods are cell phones, and that most of these are coming from China – with which the Trump administration of course has been fighting a trade war.

As observed on RealityChek last month, however, Mr. Trump decided not to tariff them. So although cell phone imports indicate that the trade war is incomplete, they certainly don’t show that tariffs don’t work. If anything, they underscore what can happen when they’re missing.

A third major source of the deterioration shown in the new trade report is the civilian aircraft industry – where a surplus of $575 million in June became a $1.50 billion deficit in July. That’s a trade balance worsening of nearly $2.08 billion. In other words, this development alone accounts for 13.44 percent of the lousy July manufacturing trade results and 20.93 percent of the woes in non-oil goods trade flows.

Aircraft’s problems, however, have nothing to do with U.S. trade policy, and everything to with Boeing’s safety failures, which have led to big production shutdowns.

Add up the trade performances of these categories, and together they account for fully 43.38 percent of the manufacturing trade deficit’s increase between June and July, and a whopping 67.57 percent of the monthly rise in the non-oil deficit.

Combine these findings with a U.S. economic recovery that so far has been faster than the bouncebacks of many of its leading trade partners (except, notably, for export-heavy China) and the discouraging July trade figures don’t look nearly so discouraging.

Mission accomplished, then, for the Trump administration? Hardly? But the July trade report is far from a conclusive sign of failure, either. In fact, it leaves any fair-minded evaluation of the Trump trade record pretty much where it’s been since the CCP Virus arrived – deserving of solid grades before the bug arrived, and an incomplete during the completely abnormal times we’ve experienced since then.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Some New Trump-Friendly Data on Manufacturing Productivity

Tags

Barack Obama, Labor Department, manufacturing, metals tariffs, multi-factor productivity, productivity, tariffs, total factor productivity, Trade, trade wars, Trump, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If I had a list of twenty top wishes, more timely U.S. government publication of the multifactor productivity statistics wouldn’t make the cut. All the same, I’d like to see the posting of this data sped up for several reasons, including:

>Multi-factor productivity (also called total factor productivity) is the broadest of the measures of economic efficiency tracked by Washington, purporting to show how much in the way of all kind of inputs are needed to produce a unit of economic output in a given time period; and

>although even stalwarts of the rarely humble economics profession agree that productivity is challenging to measure precisely, they also mainly tend to agree that the stronger a country’s productivity performance, the likelier that country’s population will be living standards rise on a sustainable, not bubbly, basis.

So even though the new detailed multi=factor productivity statistics released by the Labor Department late last week only bring us through 2018, they’re worth contemplating anyway – and even for those focused tightly on politics in this presidential election year. For these latest numbers somewhat further undercut widespread claims that President Trump’s tariff-heavy trade policies have been weakening American domestic manufacturing (which is strongly affected by trade), and indeed add to those overall economic metrics for which the Trump years have seen better performance than the Obama years. (As known by RealityChek regulars, the Obama administration holds an edge here.)

Let’s start with what the new Labor Department release says about how many of the industries it follows achieved multi-factor productivity growth during the last two Obama years and the first two Trump years (the best basis for comparison, since it examines time spans closest together in the same – expansionary – business cycle). Here are the numbers:

2015: 21 of 86

2016: 37 of 86

2017: 32 of 86

2018: 44 of 86

On average, these gains were considerably more widespread under the Trump administration. Also noteworthy: Although the number of multi-factor productivity growers dipped between the final year of the Obama administration and the first year of the Trump administration, that first Trump year featured no tariff increases. These moves didn’t begin until the early spring of 2018 – a year in which the numbers of productivity growers rose significantly.

Such figures by no means clinch the case that the tariffs helped domestic manufacturers – because a single year can’t make or break an argument; because trade policy was far from the only development influencing manufacturing; because none of the developments that do influence productivity work their magic in ways convenient for calendar-watchers; and because the 2018 tariffs only covered aluminum and steel.

Still, it’s hard to look at these productivity numbers and see any harm done to U.S.-based manufacturing by the tariffs – or by the very good reasons at the time for assuming that many more were on the way, with all their implications for business plans.

But what about actual multi-factor productivity throughout the entire manufacturing sector. Here’s what separate Labor Department data reveal:

last two Obama years combined:  -2.15 percent

first two Trump years combined: +0.84 percent

Another Trump edge, and another reason for doubting the “tariff-mageddon” claims concerning manufacturing.

The multi-factor productivity reports also handily present the numbers of manufacturing sectors that enjoyed overall output growth year in and out. These data make the Trump years look superior, too, and cast further doubt on the tariff opponents’ credibility:

2015: 50 of 86

2016: 31 of 86

2017: 44 of 86

2018: 55 of 86

Unfortunately, even if the multi-factor productivity data for 2019 (a slower growth year for domestic industry) were available, robust conclusions about the Trump manufacturing record on this front per se, and especially about the effects of the tariffs would be difficult for the fair-minded to draw. After all, that’s the year when major tariffs on Chinese goods were imposed, and therefore when the inevitable inefficiencies they created began. In other words, U.S.-based manufacturers were just at the start of efforts to make supply chain and other adjustments to the levies, not at the end of this process. And the CCP Virus’ arrival and all the economic distortions it’s produced will complicate analysis going forward.

Moreover, although it should be “needless to say,” I’ll make the point again anyway: Major changes in U.S. trade policy toward China and overall were vital both for economic, national security, and – as has become clear this year – health security reasons.

As a result, here’s the firmest conclusion I can draw: The stronger U.S. manufacturing’s performance in improving multi-factor productivity remains, the easier these needed trade wars will be to win at acceptable prices.