Michael Mandel participated in a recent OECD conference in Paris, France, Growth, Innovation And Competitiveness: Maximizing The Benefits Of Knowledge-Based Capital. Mandel joined Matteo Pacca of McKinsey & Company and Jakob Haesler of tinyclues for a panel entitled, “‘Big-data: An Emerging Frontier for Innovation and Policy?”. He spoke on trade relating to “Big-data” and its role on generating growth and jobs.
Watch the event webcast.
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931
WASHINGTON—Government statistics don’t show it, but the production and consumption of data is the leading edge of economic growth in the United States, says a new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).
The report, Beyond Goods and Services: The (Unmeasured) Rise of the Data-Driven Economy, is by Dr. Michael Mandel, PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Wharton’s Mack Center for Technological Innovation. It was prepared for a transatlantic conference in Rome on Oct. 11-12 organized by PPI and John Cabot University.
Government statistical agencies, notes Mandel, traditionally divide economic activity into two categories: goods and services. Data, however, is neither a good or service:
Data is intangible, like a service, but can be easily stored and delivered far from its original production point, like a good. What’s more, the statistical techniques that have been traditionally used to track goods and services don’t work well for data-driven economic activities. The implication is that the key statistics watched by policy makers – economic growth, consumption, investment and trade – dramatically understate the importance of data for the economy. In turn, these misleading statistics distort government policy.
To remedy this problem, Mandel proposes that data be added as a primary economic category alongside goods and services. After adjusting government figures to account for unmeasured data consumption, Mandel estimates that real U.S. GDP rose at a 2.3 percent rate in the first half of 2012, compared to the official rate of 1.7 percent.
Next week’s Rome conference, The Rise of the Data-Driven Economy: Implications for Growth and Policy, brings together two dozen representatives of U.S. and European companies, officials of the European Union and Parliament, and academic experts. The forum will highlight the contribution of data-driven growth to the economies of Europe as well the United States; examine the potential impact of new European Union rules on data regulation and privacy on cross-border data flows; and, explore broader Internet governance questions that will on the agenda in December’s meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai.
Leading representatives of U.S. Internet and telecommunications firms will also be hand to discuss corporate responsibility for empowering customers to protect their privacy and being ethical stewards of data. These include Laura Fennell, General Counsel of Intuit; Maurice Fitzgerald, Vice President of Strategy-Autonomy of Hewlett-Packard; Carolyn Nuygen, Technology Policy Strategist of Microsoft; Anthony House, Manager of Public Policy for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Google; and Ed Black, President and CEO of the Computer and Communications Industry Association.
The Progressive Policy Institute is an independent, innovative and high-impact D.C.-based think tank founded in 1989. As the original “idea mill” for President Bill Clinton’s New Democrats, PPI has a long legacy of promoting break-the-mold ideas aimed at economic growth, national security and modern, performance-based government. Today, PPI’s unique mix of political realism and policy innovation continues to make it a leading source of pragmatic and creative ideas.
– END –
INTRODUCTION
We live in a world where ‘data-driven economic activities’—the production, distribution and use of digital information of all types—are the leading edge of economic growth. Mobile broadband, increasingly available even in poor countries, is fostering a fundamental technological and social transformation. Big data—the storage, manipulation, and analysis of huge data sets—is changing the way that businesses and governments make decisions. And torrents of data ceaselessly flow back and forth across national borders, keeping the global economy linked.
Yet paradoxically, economic and regulatory policymakers around the world are not getting the data they need to understand the importance of data for the economy. Consider this: The Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. agency which estimates economic growth, will tell you how much Americans increased their consumption of jewelry and watches in 2011, but offers no information about the growing use of mobile apps or online tax preparation programs. Eurostat, the European statistical agency, reports how much European businesses invested in buildings and equipment in 2010, but not how much those same businesses spent on consumer or business databases. And the World Trade Organization publishes figures on the flow of clothing from Asia to the United States, but no official agency tracks the very valuable flow of data back and forth across the Pacific.
The problem is that data-driven economic activities do not fit naturally into the traditional economic categories. Since the modern concept of economic growth was developed in the 1930s, economists have been systematically trained to think of the economy is being divided into two big categories: ‘Goods’ and ‘services’.
Goods are physical commodities, like clothes and steel beams, while services include everything else from healthcare to accounting to haircuts to restaurants. Goods are tangible and can be easily stored for future use, while services are intangible, and cannot be stockpiled for future use. In theory, a statistician could estimate the output of a country by counting the number of cars and the bushels of corns coming out of the country’s factories and farms, and by watching workers in the service sector and counting the number of haircuts performed and the number of meals served.
But data is neither a good or service. Data is intangible, like a service, but can easily be stored and delivered far from its original production point, like a good. What’s more, the statistical techniques that have been traditionally used to track goods and services don’t work well for data-driven economic activities. The implication is that the key statistics watched by policymakers—economic growth, consumption, investment, and trade—dramatically understate the importance of data for the economy. In turn, these misleading statistics distort government policy.
SUMMARY
In this policy brief we will show that government economic statistics, stuck in the 20th century, are missing most of the data boom. To remedy this problem, it is time to expand our economic statistics to add data as a primary economic category, just like goods and services. Until we do this, policymakers and regulators won’t have the information they need to make good decisions.
This policy brief is organized around three major arguments:
To put it another way, restrictive and prescriptive regulation of the Internet and the movement and uses of data could have the effect not only of constraining Internet freedom but also Internet free trade. Such regulation could become the trade barriers of the data-driven economy, “balkanizing” access to information and innovative data-driven products and services and constraining global economic growth. That’s a highly undesirable outcome for everyone.
Photo credit: Shutterstock/photobank.kiev.ua
Are U.S. manufacturing jobs gone for good? Many so-called experts have mocked the Obama Administration’s latest trade action against China as being fundamentally useless, the economic equivalent of spitting into the wind. After all, factory job seem like a relic of the past.
Yet by our calculations, the U.S. could regain 4 million jobs in manufacturing at relatively low cost – if we follow the right policies. PPI does not advocate a trade war with China, or a tit-for-tat exchange of trade actions. But taking legitimate disputes to the WTO is the right way to enforce the rules – and in most cases to date with China the U.S. has had success. Such carefully targeted actions, back by accurate data, could make a big difference in boosting the economy.
That’s because we are fighting to recapture competitiveness that may have been disingenuously lost. When countries like China provide non-market financing or other subsidies to industries like automobiles, it gives their companies an advantage that wouldn’t be there absent government support. Such an advantage negatively impacts U.S. companies trying to compete, even if China does not export directly to the U.S. As the NYT explains, “While China exports virtually no fully assembled cars to the United States, it has rapidly expanded exports to developing countries, and those exports compete to some extent with cars exported from or designed in the United States.”
Monday’s WTO filing may be a small first step, but we must start somewhere. We are in a slow-growth economy with an anemic labor market. If we want U.S. companies to keep and increase production (and jobs) here, if we want to close the non-oil trade gap, we must be competitive. And it would help if we gave U.S. companies a level playing field to fight on instead of an uphill battle. Continue reading “WTO Filing a Step Toward Enhancing Competitiveness”
PPI’s Will Marshall detailed Mitt Romney’s recent adventure in the world of foreign policy over at The American Interest. Romney was able to stumble his way through a trip to Britain, Israel, and Poland all while offering very little in the form of substantive policies focusing more on criticisms of President Obama’s foreign policy.
Mitt Romney’s midsummer foray into foreign policy has left Democrats giddy with schadenfreude. More than his stumbling performance abroad, however, it’s the substance of Romney’s views that ought to really give voters pause.
Or, more precisely, lack of substance. With less than 100 days to go, Romney has yet to develop a coherent outlook on U.S. security and leadership in a networked world. What we get instead is GOP boilerplate about American greatness and exceptionalism, and a pastiche of spaghetti-against-the wall criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy.
Romney, of course, wants the election to center on the economy, and he’s offering himself, in effect, as a more experienced and capable CEO. His missteps over the past week, however, raise doubts about his ability to take over as Commander in Chief.
The sequence began with his first major foreign policy address, to the Veterans of Foreign Affairs. It was a pedestrian affair that left even conservative commentators underwhelmed, when they bothered to comment on it at all. Next, Romney embarked on his Grand Tour of three U.S. allies—Britain, Israel and Poland—supposedly dissed by Obama. The point of the exercise was to show that Romney knows how to treat America’s best friends.
Read the entire article HERE
Photo Credit: Austen Hufford
Most people didn’t notice that Commerce Secretary Bryson resigned late last month. And why would they? The Commerce Department has long been one of the more obscure federal institutions, viewed by many as a hodge-podge of important but seemingly unrelated agencies like the Patent & Trademark Office, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Census Bureau. The agency is so partitioned that most Commerce employees probably haven’t noticed the unexpected departure.
That is a shame. Rather than being irrelevant, the Secretary of Commerce now plays a critical role as a champion for domestic investment – effectively America’s ‘Chief Investment Officer.’ Recent actions by President Obama put the Commerce Department at the forefront of encouraging U.S. investment. That places a significant responsibility on the Department, since business spending on stuff like new office space and equipment is critical to stimulating economic growth.
Continue reading “Help Wanted: ‘Chief U.S. Investment Officer’”
Late yesterday marked a formal end to the two-year debate on whether the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), the U.S. export credit agency, deserves to live to see another day. (It does.) What was once a routine process for Ex-Im reauthorization was held back by congressional charges of corporate welfare by the Tea Party. But while the decision to reauthorize the Bank for another two and a half years is good, the fact that it took so long is not: at this rate negotiations for the next round will have to begin before this legislation is finalized. That is a heavy drain on congressional and Ex-Im Bank resources. One has to ask, is there a way to avoid the same extended debate next time around?
Yes, with a little more clarity on why two-year long ideological attacks on Ex-Im creates uncertainty that hurts U.S. companies and detracts from Ex-Im’s effectiveness. As someone who worked at the Bank for almost three years, I’d like to offer some of that clarity.
Continue reading “Stop the Uncertainty Surrounding Ex-Im Bank”
We live in a world where the communications sector is driving the recovery and receiving much attention. We believe that this is the most important ongoing development in the American economy, offering the potential for long-term transformation.
But while very important, a boom in communications isn’t enough, alone, to achieve balanced and sustainable growth. We need every sector of the economy, including manufacturing, to contribute. With this in mind, the Obama Administration has taken the positive step of proposing a series of policy measures that would encourage domestic manufacturing.
In this spirit, we undertake an audacious question: In this era of apps and social media, what is a reasonable long-term goal for manufacturing employment?
We first show that manufacturing has larger job spillovers than commonly thought, based on new calculations. Next, we estimate the employment consequences of eliminating the trade gap in manufactured non-oil goods, a desirable long-term goal, without reducing our standard of living.
Assuming such a balancing, we find that the U.S. should aim to add roughly 3.5-4 million direct and indirect manufacturing jobs over the long run, raising total manufacturing employment to about 15.5-16 million, or 2001 levels. This bold effort would ease the job drought and offer millions of Americans a path to the middle class. What’s more, we would be producing more at home, while borrowing less from the rest of the world.
Achieving this admittedly aspirational goal would come at a relatively small price: we calculate that overall economy-wide prices would have a one-time rise of only 1.8-2.0%, spread out over the time it takes to close the trade gap. To put this in context, the inflation rate for gross domestic purchases has averaged well over 2% annually over the past ten years. So closing the trade gap would raise prices by less than one-year’s inflation.
When it comes to manufacturing, most politicians, economists, and journalists agree: the millions of manufacturing jobs lost in recent years are mostly not coming back. Looking at the official data, it’s easy to understand why. Productivity in the sector has continued to climb even as jobs dwindled, so it must be the case that these jobs were lost to good old human ingenuity.
But this conclusion is derived from faulty official data. Indeed, a closer look at the numbers reveals an entirely different history on what happened to U.S. manufacturing.
Specifically, this paper shows that rising imports play a much larger role in the loss of jobs since 2007 than official data suggests. In fact, we estimate that rising real imports are responsible for approximately 1.3 million of the jobs lost between 2007 and 2011, or almost one-third of total private non-construction job loss.
We reached the estimate of 1.3 million jobs through a process that adjusts for for measurement problems in the official statistics. This adjustment is based on a concept called the “import price bias,” which causes the government to undercount the growth of low-cost imports from countries such as China. After adjusting for the import price bias, our analysis suggests that the import growth of goods, adjusted for price changes, have been underestimated by roughly $117 billion since 2007 (in 2011 dollars).
Moreover, we find undercounting real imports leads to a distortion in most of the official statistics that keep track of economic activity, including real GDP, which was overstated during the Great Recession and subsequent recovery by 0.8%. Our analysis suggests imports of low-cost goods continued to expand their presence in U.S. markets during this period, a phenomenon that likely started in the early 2000’s when developing countries such as China significantly boosted their exporting presence.
In this paper we also discuss how these revised statistics might affect the economic and political landscape going into the 2012 election. Specifically, President Obama’s recently announced “insourcing” initiative has the potential to recover some portion of the 1.3 million jobs lost to rising imports. By comparison, current policies like the payroll tax break are more likely to leak overseas than we realize instead of stimulating demand at home.
Understanding the true effect of rising imports on jobs better explains the everyday reality of Americans who are struggling through a weak job market and stagnant real wages. This is especially true in key states such as Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, where voters know that jobs have been lost to foreign competition.
In the end, sustainable economic growth and the creation of tomorrow’s jobs cannot be achieved through the consumption, debt driven economy of the past few decades. Instead, we advocate more of the pro-investment, pro-manufacturing policies recently introduced by the Obama Administration, such policies shift America toward a “Production Economy” which emphasizes investment in physical, human, and knowledge capital. Understanding the true role of imports in the U.S. economy, we can design better, more targeted economic policies.
In the Atlantic, PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel explains why President Obama needed to start in the middle of his speech and focus on the competitiveness and production narrative:
“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere.”
President Obama needs to give his jobs speech again. This time he should start in the middle.
To addressing the American people’s concerns and to win in 2012, the President needs a narrative–a story that explains how and why we got into this mess, what he has done to help so far, and how his latest proposals might help get the economy out of a ditch.
The good news: Thursday’s jobs speech contained the beginnings of a powerful story about the need to restore U.S. competitiveness. As Obama said:
“We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build, and out-educate, and out-innovate every other country on Earth.”
The bad news: Obama buried this nascent narrative in the second half of the speech. What’s more, most of his proposals last night–including the payroll tax cut–did not directly attack the competitiveness problem he identified.
Obama must do better than that. He should be telling the story of how America got distracted–by 9/11, by political infighting, and by excessive confidence. He should be explaining how we allowed ourselves to emphasize consumption and the present, rather than production and the future. And he should link each of his policy proposals to the idea of rebuilding the production economy.
Just before Labor Day, PPI’s President Will Marshall had an opinion piece in The Atlantic, in which he proposed reorienting the relationship of organized labor. Rather than adversaries, they should be partners. Here’s an excerpt:
President Obama is cobbling together a new jobs package for September, but it won’t be enough to revive the economy. Instead of offering another grab-bag of micro-initiatives, the administration needs to embrace a different model for growth that stimulates production rather than consumption, saving rather than borrowing and exports rather than imports.
This strategy emphasizes investment in the nation’s physical, human and knowledge capital–infrastructure, skilled workers and new technology. That’s a better way to raise U.S. wages and living standards than a new jolt of fiscal stimulus.
Getting consumers spending again will boost demand, but much of it will leak overseas via rising imports, stimulating foreign rather than U.S. production. In a world awash with cheap labor, where technology gaps are narrowing rapidly, a wealthy society like ours can thrive only by speeding the pace of economic innovation and capturing its value in jobs that stay in America.
The shift from a consumer-oriented to a producer-centered society won’t happen without a new partnership between labor and business–and a shift in outlook among workers themselves. Organized or not, U.S. workers should think of themselves first and foremost as producers rather than consumers. They have a compelling interest in keeping the companies they work for competitive, and in supporting a new economic policy framework that enables investment, entrepreneurship and domestic production. This reality points to new relations between workers and companies, and new political alliances.
A GRAND BARGAIN FOR LABOR
In the post-war compact of the 1950s and 1960s, workers offered loyalty and labor offered peace to companies in return for stable jobs with decent pay and benefits. But the deal between labor and capital changed as globalization took hold. Workers gave up job security; in return, they got low consumer prices and access to easy credit. Despite access to cheap foreign goods, however, real incomes fell for most households, as real wages dropped and job growth in most parts of the private sector virtually disappeared. Easy credit was used to fund consumption rather than investment in human capital.
Now, at a time when America’s economic preeminence cannot be taken for granted, the interests of workers are converging with those of companies, foreign and domestic, that want to invest in the U.S. economy. In a new compact for competitiveness, workers would pay more attention to innovation, workplace flexibility and productivity gains. Companies would invest more in upgrading workers’ skills, help them balance the pressures of work and family, and pay them middle class wages and benefits.
Two unions are pointing the way toward such a bargain: the United Auto Workers (UAW) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
Read the rest by clicking here to find out how. Read Marshall’s full policy briefing on the subject by clicking here.
Where can Americans cut back if the economy slips back into recession again? After all the talk about the “new frugality” and the deepest recession in 75 years, it might seem like households have tightened their belts as much as possible.
Surprisingly, however, the economic figures show several key areas where Americans have actually increased consumption compared to 2006, the year when housing prices peaked. Judge for yourself whether we can cut back more or not. (Note: all consumption changes are measured in inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars, comparing the 2nd quarter of 2011 with the second quarter of 2006)
1. Clothing — Consumption: + 8.9% since 2006
Despite the economic weakness, Americans spent on clothing at an almost $350 billon annual rate in the second quarter of 2011. Nothing seems to stop the waves of inexpensive shirts, dresses, and coats coming from overseas. Clothing imports from China, especially, are up 37 percent since 2006, and Americans are snapping them up. Perhaps we could buy a a few less t-shirts with funny sayings on them?
2. Personal care products — Consumption: +14.4% since 2006
We like to look our best, even in a recession. Perfume, makeup, shampoo, shaving cream and razors, body gels–Americans spend about $100 billion a year on these personal care items. Not only that, we’re spending more on imported cosmetics, which are up 26 percent since 2006. Are all those goos and gels really necessary?
3. Televisions — Consumption: +287.4% since 2006
No, that’s not a misprint. The government adjusts for the size of the television, among other things, and the average size screen has soared since 2006. If we don’t adjust for size and other variables, Americans are spending 12.7% more on televisions today compared to 2006. Total personal consumption outlays on televisions, according to the BEA: About $40 billion, pretty much all imported. Do you really need an even bigger TV?
4. Alcoholic Beverages (off-premises) — Consumption: +10.7% since 2006
Perhaps it’s not surprising that Americans need an extra drink these days. Still, the total home spending on alcoholic beverages is about $110 billion, at annual rates, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A few less glasses might put a few extra dollars in the pocket.
Remember, all these figures apply to Americans in the aggregate. Those people who have been out of work for months or years don’t have room to cut back at all.
And remember–when journalists write that “consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity,” they are completely wrong. What the U.S. economy needs is more production, not more consumption–and in a globalized economy, the two are not synonymous at all. And that, my friends, will be the subject of tomorrow’s post.
Photo credit: iChaz.
America has a serious oil deficit. We consume almost three times as much oil as we produce. As a result, we send more than $250 billion a year offshore (mostly to our enemies and other bad guys) to import oil so we can keep our trains, planes, and automobiles running.
On the other hand, America now has a huge surplus of natural gas, enough to last us for 100 years or more. If we replaced the oil we import with domestic gas, we could end our energy dependence and stop enriching U.S. adversaries. But rather than convert from oil to gas, plans are afoot to export the gas!
The economics of importing oil and exporting gas make no sense. We currently pay about $100 to import a barrel of oil. We are exporting natural gas at a price that has the energy equivalence of about $25 a barrel. That’s right, we are buying energy as oil for $100, selling the same amount of energy as gas for $25.
Buying high and selling low – this is what passes for national energy policy today. Our leaders should be embarrassed.
In addition to the economics, the strategic implications of converting from oil to gas are huge.
About two-thirds of the oil we use is for transportation. Converting our transportation fleet to natural gas would almost eliminate the need to import oil. Our trade deficit would be cut in half, petro-despots would be deprived of their largest revenue source, and our economy would get a $250 billion shot in the arm – every year.
So why aren’t we doing it? Converting gasoline and diesel engines to gas is relatively easy and very safe. The challenge is the infrastructure – a national network of filling stations that need to be in place before people will convert their cars and trucks to gas. Building that infrastructure requires such a huge effort and coordination among so many actors that it is unlikely that the private sector can or will make the switch by itself. Among other things, investors will worry that OPEC will defensively collapse the price of oil as they did in the ’70s. Given these market realities, the only way this switch can possibly happen will be if the government steps up to catalyze and help underwrite the effort. 150 years ago the government made a similar commitment to enable the trans-continental railroad – which ushered in America’s great industrial expansion. Converting to natural gas could bring about a similar economic boom.
Installing the required new fueling infrastructure for gas-propelled vehicles would be a tremendous generator of new jobs. There are few other investments the nation could make with as large a payoff across so many areas of national concern.
For those interested in the math:
One barrel of oil = about 5.6 million BTU. One Mcf of natural gas = about 1.02 million BTU. (The actual energy content varies slightly depending on the grade of the oil or gas. These are industry averages.)
Energy equivalence: The BTUs in 1 bbl. oil = The BTUs in 5.6 Mcf natural gas.
1 bbl oil costs $96.75 and the same amount of energy in gas costs $25.59 (5.6Mcf x $4.57),
The energy cost ratio between oil and gas is roughly 4 ($100/$25).
That means we’re paying 4 times as much for an oil BTU as we get when we sell a gas BTU.
It also means that once we have completed the conversion, operating on gas instead of gasoline will reduce our transportation energy costs by almost 75 percent.
Photo Credit: Arimoore
Many economists are racing to declare a ‘manufacturing revival.’ The latest to join the bandwagon is Paul Krugman. In his latest column, Krugman writes (my emphasis added)
Manufacturing is one of the bright spots of a generally disappointing recovery…..Crucially, the manufacturing trade deficit seems to be coming down. At this point, it’s only about half as large as a share of G.D.P. as it was at the peak of the housing bubble, and further improvements are in the pipeline…one piece of good news is that Americans are, once again, starting to actually make things.
Oh, how I wish Paul was right. Unfortunately, I still don’t see it in the trade numbers. In fact, the real trade deficits in capital and consumer goods are both nearing all-time (negative) records. Meanwhile, the real trade deficit for industrial supplies and materials has improved in large part because of an enormous surge in real exports of energy products, including coal, fuel oil, and other petroleum products (yes you read that right) and a sharp decline in imports of building materials. I don’t find either of these convincing proof of a resurgence of manufacturing.
As you might expect, time for some charts. Here’s a chart (below) of the real trade balance in capital goods in billions of 2005 dollars, calculated on a 12-month basis.
Capital goods include computers, telecom gear, machinery, aircraft, medical equipment–the heart of U.S. advanced manufacturing. Within a couple of months, if current trends continue, the capital goods trade deficit will be at a record level. What’s more, there’s no sign of any great domestic capital spending boom that could suck in imports.
And not to digress, these figures probably substantially underestimate the deterioration of the capital goods trade balance because of the import price bias effect , where the government statisticians do not correctly adjust for rapid changes in sourcing from high-cost countries such as the U.S. and Japan to low-cost countries such as China and Mexico (for a good reference see the new paper “Offshoring Bias in U.S. Manufacturing” by Susan Houseman, Christopher Kurz, Paul Lengermann, and Benjamin Mandel in the latest issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives) .
Now let’s turn to consumer goods. Here’s the chart (right) of the real trade balance in consumer goods, in 2005 dollars.
No sign of any real improvement here either, I’m afraid. The trade balance retreated a bit during the recession, but since then has surged back. Once again, there’s no sign of a sustainable improvement in the trade balance.
The situation with motor vehicles is a bit more ambiguous. As the chart to the left shows, clearly there has been some gains in the motor vehicles and parts trade balance. However, it has started deteriorating again.
Finally, we come to the one area, industrial supplies and materials, where there has been a clear improvement in the real trade balance. Industrial supplies and materials includes fuel imports and exports; steel and other metals; building materials; chemicals; and a grab bag of other things including newsprint, audio tapes, and hair.
Since 2006, there has been roughly a $150 billion improvement in the industrial supplies and materials trade deficit, measured in 2005 dollars (I say roughly because this is one case where the chain-weighted procedures used to construct the figures gives quirky answers that aren’t additive. So when I give the following numbers, please please don’t divide them into $150 billion to get a share of the improvement). Part of that is a decline in real imports of crude oil, which fell by roughly $30 billion (measured from 2006 to the 12 months ending in March 2011). But another $30 billion, more or less, came from an increase in real exports of petroleum products such as fuel oil and lubricants. I’m not sure whether a gain in exports of fuel oil really tells us much about the fortunes of manufacturing overall.
Another contributor to the improved trade balance is a decline in the imports of building materials. Once again, not a sign of strength.
So I see no sign in the trade data of a great manufacturing revival. The topline improvement in the real trade deficit has mostly come from industrial materials and supplies, and within that from a swing in the energy sector imports and exports.
Let me finish with a quote from a piece that Paul Krugman wrote back in 1994. In that piece, he scoffed at worries that foreign competition was hurting U.S. manufacturing. He argued that
A growing body of evidence contradicts the popular view that international competition is central to U.S. economic problems. In fact, international factors have played a surprisingly small role in the country’s economic difficulties…. recent analyses indicate that growing international trade does not bear significant responsibility even for the declining real wages of less educated U.S. workers.
I wonder if he still believes that today.
Crossposted from Innovation and Growth.
The following is an anonymous piece by an economist at an international financial institution. The views expressed here are solely those of the author.
Despite what politicians across the political spectrum will scream at you, the United States’ screwed up finances haven’t yet reached the level of an existential debt crisis.
To be clear, America must get its fiscal house in order, and ongoing debates and collaboration across the legislative and executive branches are important to righting America’s budgetary ship over the next few years. But let us dispel the notion that unduly draconian debt-reduction measures–that only touch the discretionary budget no less–must be enacted yesterday. Big picture reform of entitlement spending, increasing federal revenue, and scrutinizing the Pentagon’s budget must, and will, happen. However, the shrill, mostly right-wing political calls to cast ideologically-motivated yet relatively tiny budget cuts as the solution to a spending emergency will not solve the debt crisis and could create a culture that chokes off needed investment in critical areas. As any CEO will tell you, a certain level of borrowing to fund strategic investment is a critical component to reaping higher future returns. The same is true of public borrowing to support America’s long-term economic growth.
Here are three unique reasons why the U.S. continues to be in a position to borrow:
(1) Liquid financial markets and the reserve characteristics of the U.S. dollar create a nearly inexhaustible supply of creditors for our public debt. In plain English, this means that U.S. dollar assets are the safest global investment and savings vehicle and are easily accessible, keeping the federal government’s cost of borrowing relatively low (i.e., the US can harness global, not just national savings).
(2) Confidence in our monetary system to keep a lid on inflation will preserve U.S. Treasuries as desirable assets. Fear of inflation stoked by printing money to finance deficits is a primary fear of investors and not concern for the U.S. due to an independent Federal Reserve. The Fed appears to be aware and prepared for potential inflationary risks, and its track record, through several business cycles, has been praiseworthy as inflation, measured by the consumer price index, averaged 3.1 percent between 1982 and 2011.
(3) We are saving more domestically and could replace external demand for US dollar assets. A surprisingly large percentage of U.S. Treasuries remained in the hands of U.S. residents as of December 2010, and with the household savings rate doubling since its trough in 2005, the capacity to fund our public liabilities domestically will improve.
Long-term economic growth constraints erode debt sustainability in the US
The resulting ongoing and outlandishly panicked fiscal debate ignores a critical measurement of the nation’s economic health: our long-term economic growth potential. Not only is it a source of wealth and power, it is a major component of assessing our level of sustainable debt. Nominal economic growth – a function of increases to our stock of labor and capital — reflects a nation’s capacity to repay debt. When it is faster than the growth of new net borrowing then there is no problem. In other words, if your family’s income is growing faster than the amount you are borrowing, then your indebtedness is declining – a good thing! This is the dual assessment employed by international investors and rating agencies.
Borrowing to fund investment is critical to fostering future economic growth. By ignoring crucial investments in the nation’s stock of capital and labor, our politicians are mortgaging our future. Investment in public infrastructure, education, and immigration reform foster more rapid growth as they increase our stock of capital and labor, expanding economic capacity and productivity. By failing to be cognizant of the basic investment needs to maintain and expand our growth potential, our political leaders are just making political hay.
Hence, the fiscal debate on the Hill, which ignores economic growth potential, could ironically contribute to long-term market insecurity by raising our interest costs, and possibly lead to a greater debt crisis. What’s needed is a balanced approach, one that puts our long-term fiscal policy on a sustainable path through a combination of controlled spending, entitlement reform, revenue increases and with a contribution from the Pentagon, while committing to invest in our future.
Here are three critical areas of investment where the United States is failing to maximize growth potential by under-investing in capital stock and labor:
Public infrastructure: The United States’ capital stock is suffering from decades of neglect, increasing the cost of doing business and decreasing our competitiveness. The 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers infrastructure report card gave us a grade of “D”. Compared to some of our competitors — who are investing in high-speed rail, clean energy production, and smart grids – we may appear to be standing still. For example, Europe invests 5 percent of GDP in infrastructure while the United States spends less than 2.4 percent.
Educating our future workforce: Sadly, our secondary education system compares poorly internationally and, while our universities are the envy of the world, we manifest an artificial brain-drain as we expel U.S.-educated, non-citizens to the benefit of our international competitors. Our education system is one of the most expensive but yields only average results. According to the OECD, the United States spent 7.6 percent of GDP on all levels of education in 2007, almost 2 percentage points above the OECD average, but secondary and tertiary completion rates remained below the average of other advanced countries.
Immigration: Immigration reform can and should be viewed through this economic lens – we must create a reliable system of immigration to expand our future labor pool, increase economic growth, and produce the resources we need to help finance unfunded public liabilities.
Our political class will continue to yell at one another on CNN and Fox, but keep in mind that all spending is not the same, and that there are sound economic arguments to support crucial investment in these discreet areas for the long-term economic health of the country.
In 1987 the G6 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK) accounted for 55 percent of U.S. goods imports. That same year, China, Mexico and Brazil only accounted for 8 percent of imports.
In 2010 the U.S. reached a milestone–for the first time, imports from China/Mexico/Brazil exceeded imports from the G6 countries. In the year ending March 2011, imports from China/Mexico/Brazil equaled 32 percent of goods imports, compared to 31 percent for the G6 countries. Here’s another way of seeing the same thing. Please note that OPEC’s share, and the share of “all other countries,” don’t change very much. It’s really the G6 versus a handful of low-cost importers.
One final note. The shift in sourcing is most likely happening because the goods made in China/Mexico/Brazil are less expensive than the same goods made in France/Germany/UK. Unfortunately, the BLS import price statistics are not able to pick up the price drops from shifts in country sourcing.
Suppose for example that goods made in China are sold for one-third less than the same goods made in Japan. Then for the same physical quantity of imports, that shift in sourcing will cause the nominal value of imports to be one-third lower. This imparts a significant downward bias to the import penetration ratio.
Crossposted from Mandel on Innovation and Growth.
