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
For a few months now I have been hearing from folks close to the PBOC that the outflow from the state banks was driven by fx deposit growth, not by backdoor intervention. The blog takes that argument VERY seriously
2/
One is that onshore fx deposits themselves are a bit funky -- and have been for a long time. They don't move with rate differentials or any other obvious economic variable, so they could be (but I have no smoking gun proof) policy driven
The argument that China has a comparative advantage at industrial policy is a bit like the argument that the US has a comparative advantage at exporting debt. It is a good line, but even quips need a limiting principle ...
1/
I am not sure this week's Free Lunch column came up with that limiting principle; the notion that "the west might be better off simply leveraging the benefits of Chinese scale" suggests getting out of China's way across the board
But China has -- in Greg Ip's phrase (based on Rhodium's analysis) -- an "industrial policy for everything," which would imply that China is on track (with its comparative advantage at industrial policy) to dominate most industrial sectors
Germany's goods and services surplus has collapsed, and its surplus is now down to 2.5% of its GDP -- about half the level of China's far larger economy
Germany unlike China does report that its accumulated surpluses have generated an investment income surplus -- and China's reported deficit by all accounts (even that of the IMF, which grades China on a very generous curve) makes no sense
2/
I have criticized Germany for overly restrictive budgeting and excess surpluses in the past -- but fiscal has changed (thanks to the defense budget) and the surplus has fallen substantially ...
3/
I wanted to highlight this chart, as it is the chart that best illustrates why the available data points to active Chinese state management of the exchange rate. it shows that there is a predictable pattern to fx settlement --
1/
When spot is at the weak edge of the 2% band defined by the PBOC's daily fix, there are predictably sales in settlement (someone is defending the band) and when spot is at the midpoint, there are predictably purchases (esp. when the fix is appreciating)
2/
That is of couse the pattern one would expect from central bank intervention (apart from buying at the mid point not the strong side of the band) -- and for 17 years settlement was basically equal to changes in the PBOC's f. assets
Handelsblatt has -- on its front page -- an article summarizing my new paper with Sander Tordoir on Germany's need to find policies to actually fight back against the second China shock
China's industrial structure -- as the ECB and others have noted -- increasingly overlaps with that of Germany ... with autos being the most obvious case.
And the China shock there won't go away on its own; Chinese auto export growth accelerated in the last 12ms
2/
The China shock is also visible in the global data -- an undervalued Chinese currency propelled Chinese exports to grow much faster than global trade. China is now big, so that meant someone else's exports had to grow more slowly than global trade ...
The net foreign asset position of China's state banks (in both dollars and RMB) is now $1.5 trillion -- a rather big sum (close to 1/2 China's formal reserves, a sum bigger than Japan's reserves ... )
1/ many
These are mostly funds that the state commercial banks have raised domestically (whether from real deposits, from "fake" deposits from SoEs helping out the PBOC, or swaps with PBOC). Total foreign assets are $1.7 trillion v $200b of external liabilities
2/
This leaves out the policy banks (CDB, Exim) and the investment banks (CICC etc) -- which is why (I assume) the BIS data shows over $3 trillion in external Chinese bank assets (v under $1 trillion in liabilities) and ~ $2.5 trillion net position