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
Hauge to me and Pettis: "Don't hide behind the language of "imbalances." If you think China is a competitive threat and that wealthy nations should actively use industrial policy to keep it at bay, say so"
I object to the idea that arguing about imbalances is hiding ...
China's imports have grown in volume terms at an annual rate of ~ 1% over the last 5 years. China's exports have grown at a faster rare that world trade. that is a real imbalance, not a fake one ...
China's savings rate is exceptionally high (comparable to Norway which saves its oil and gas proceeds as a matter of policy and Singapore which hides its investment returns from its citizens and the budget) and China's consumption to GDP ratio is incredibly low
Glenn's arrogance is incredible given his long history of clinging stubbornly to inaccurate arguments (no overcapacity in China's exports, China doesn't "really" have a trade surplus, SAFE produces accurate BoP that no one outside China should challenge ....)
Glenn's comment to competence ratio is high -- for various reasons he recycles old work continuously and presents it as new insight (he doesn't seem willing to spring for a real data feed). seems clear domestic margins in China came under pressure in q1. Ask BYD
my comment was riffing on press reporting like that of the FT, which consistently mentions the much fatter margins on exports than on domestic sales
SAFE's quarterly data shows that 70% of the external fx assets of the Chinese state commercial banks are in dollars -- and that almost all of their net external fx assets (external assets funded domestically) are in dollars
2/
I don't love the SAFE quarterly data set -- it shows more external assets and way more external liabilities than the PBOC's data set. But the numbers on external assets at least line up, and the extra external liabilities are in CNY
Dollar pricing of Saudi oil predates Kissinger or Simon -- Aramco was the Arabian American oil company, and before that the California-Arabian Standard Oil Company! Standard oil of Californian (now Chevron) has the original Saudi concession
2/
Blustein confirms that the real deal was to mask Saudi purchase of Treasuries -- the Kingdom was worried about the optics of financing the US at a time when the US was supporting Israel ... 3/
The current inability of most of the GCC countries to get oil to market is a much bigger threat to the US economy than the possibility that some GCC countries (and not just sanctioned countries) might sell some oil to China for yuan ...
1/
selling China oil for yuan also doesn't immediately crete "euroyuan" -- not if the funds are only used to buy Chinese manufactures/ held on deposit in China (as Russia and Iran have sometimes been forced to do)
2/
Brendan Greely did us all a favor by reminding us that the surge in petrodollars came when the Gulf states oil revenues surged faster than their domestic spending -- creating funds that had to be parked offshore
I might quibble with a couple of Adam's points, just as he sometimes pushes back on a few of my arguments
But Adam gets the big picture right, unlike the IMF --
What's radically new is the scale of the surplus in manufacturirng Asia/ China
2/
That's true in dollar terms, that is also true as a share of WGDP (the Asian surplus is 2x its level in the pre-Plaza 80s, and 2x its level before the GFC -- when imbalances were more disbursed and the oil surplus was bigger)