Just a reminder as we head toward tomorrow's advance trade data (for September) and the more detailed release next week:
US exports to China of goods covered by the deal normally pick up in the last third of the year.
That is as predictable as the timing of the harvest ...
1/x
Everything has kind of been mucked up for the last two years, though, as China (famously) didn't buy any beans in 2018 (showing the power of the state importing companies).
This year though should be ... more or less normal
2/x
As Chad Bown's detailed numbers* show, ag exports (the sept data for China now comes out early) will be back in line with their 2017 levels (helped by pork) -- but no where close to the big gains promised
*I am shocked @ChadBown included lobsters. Shocked
3/x
But with manufacturing weak*, total U.S. exports are still unlikely to reach 2017 levels, let alone far exceed them.
* There is no advance data for aircraft, and I think the "deal" cheated a bit by allowing orders to count toward the total.
For fun, I plotted covered exports (so no aircraft) to China as a share of US GDP over the last 10ys. To me the big story is still how undynamic they have been both before and after the "deal"
(they were about 0.4% of US GDP back in 17 ...)
5/x
To paraphrase a bit, China's rapid growth shows up everywhere except in its import data
(especially of manufactures)
6/x
The most dynamic large manufacturing export to China is semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and that one is complicated, as, well China's imports here are a function of an industrial policy designed to reduce China's imports of chips*
7/x
*/ there may be a pull forward effect from the threat of export controls as well
8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hallelujah. The IMF has recognized that China's weak real exchange rate is a problem, and that it has contributed to China's export surplus and growing trade tensions. From @KeithBradsher in the NYT
1/
The IMF has lagged on this issue, not led ... and it still isn't quite calling for a nominal appreciation (though Georgieva may have hinted at the need for nominal appreciation to offset inflation differentials). The EU Chamber is more explicit (from the FT)
2/
The IMF's formal press statement attributes the Yuan's real depreciation to inflation differentials (nominal moves v the USD also played a role in 22/23)
Brutal -- but accurate -- assessment of the results of Trump's year one policies by @wsj_douglasj and @JonathanEmont of the WSJ
1/
"Strip out imports of energy, food and raw materials, and China is on track this year to post a surplus in manufactured goods of around $2 trillion, a huge sum that is on a par with the annual national income of Russia or Italy" 2/
Exports are a big enough share of China's economy (~ 20%) that two years of 10% or more export volume growth can drive an overall increase in manufacturing output even if the domestic economy is the in doldrums
"China is now the world’s ... largest exporter, but ... It has never believed in balanced trade nor comparative advantage. Even as it imported critical technology from the West, its long-term goal was always self-sufficiency
Nice chart too
1/
Very much agree with his overall thesis, and with his policy prescription
2/
The title of Ip's piece more of less speaks for itself
One feature of today's global economy: the incredible concentration of the global goods surplus in East Asia (using customs data). Way more so than in Trump one
1/
Implicit in the chart is the observation that the rest of oil-importing East Asia has maintained its goods surplus even as China's surplus has soared (helped by demand for Korean and Taiwanese chips)
2/
There is another point here -- one relevant for both @imfnews and France as they think about global trace and macro imbalances -- the current account surplus of East Asia ex China far exceeds their customs goods surplus ....
I am (obviously) a part of the "East Coast" think tank establishment Mr. Balding criticizes, & also served in the Biden Administration. But I would encourage Mr. Balding to read some of the work that I and my colleagues have done, as he paints with far too broad a brush
I would be the first to say that not enough was/ is being done on active pharmaceutical ingredients. But inside and outside of government I advocated for the 301 tariffs to be extended to rare earths/ magnets ... which was in the end done as part of the 301 review
2/
So if Mr. Balding's standard is forward progress, a bit was done there (tho not enough)
3/