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
A central question in the technical debate over China's balance of payments data is the price of an iPhone (a smart phone) in China's export data. China claims that it is inflated, and way higher than the actual cost of production. But that claim doesn't really check out.
the US ITC has said that essentially all smart phones imported from China to the US are from Apple -- and the China's export price there is $400. That maps closely to most of the recent knock down studies on the cost of making an iPhone ... the EU/ UK/ JP price is ~ $350
A reminder that China is adjusting the export number in its balance of payments data by about $200b relative to the customs number on the grounds that the customs price reported by exporters was inflated and way higher than the price they actually received.
To state the obvious, a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China, if sustained, would be a massive shock -- a much bigger move in one weekend than all the trade action that Trump took in his first term
1/x
The just pay it cost of the tariffs on Mexico and Canada would be about 0.8 pp of US GDP (imports are ~ 3.2% of GDP). The just pay it cost is crude, but it usually a pretty good rough guide the actual impact -- as many effects offset.
2/
The 10% tariff on the 1.5% of US GDP that the US still imports from China ($400b or so in the US data) adds another 15 bp of GDP to the total, and brings the total "just pay it cost" up to about 1 pp of US GDP (leaving out retaliation)
3/
One of my favorite charts, which supports the argument that Michael Pettis making -- namely that foreign reserve accumulation drove financial inflows into the US from 2002 to 2014 (but not after!)
Another way to make the point -- for a long period of time, most of the (net) debt inflow that funded the US current account deficit came from foreign governments. (the last ten years though have been different)
Global reserve growth can be tracked, and there isn't much of it right now -- over the past 10 years of dollar strength, reserve accumulation only helped fund the US external deficit in 2020 and 2021.
2/
Just looking at Treasuries, there has been strong foreign demand for them over the past year -- but it almost entirely demand from private investors.
They invest because the US market generally offers a yield pickup over the rest of the G-10 (and China) + better liquidity
Has "the world [moved] on to trade without the US" as Ruchir Sharma seems to claim?
My answer would be a resounding no: yes, there are trade deals that don't touch the US, but the current pattern of global trade only works with the US & its deficit
Sharma seems to embrace the view of trade of many trade diplomats on the global conference circuit -- namely that it can be defined by free trade agreements (and need not be complicated by looking at the actual way global trade balances)
2/
In reality, though, the world is stuck with the US so long as global trade only balances as a result of the US deficit -- and for now, the US is essential to a world that allows many other to run surpluses, and China to run a large surplus
Since the end of 2018 (before the bulk of Trump's tariffs, before COVID), China imports of manufactures are up $90b, and its exports of manufactures are up $1060b ($1.06 trillion)
1/
That means that China's surplus in manufactures is up close to $1 trillion ($970b) --
It more or less doubled, and the overall good surplus more than doubled, in dollar terms over the last 6 years
2/
as a share of China's GDP, China's customs surplus has more than doubled from its pre-COVID levels ... it is up about 3 pp of China's GDP over the last 5-6 years (and, yes, one should ask why China's current account surplus hasn't moved up by the same amount)