The U.S. trade deficit narrowed more than expected in October as the price of imported oil dropped and faster growth abroad boosted exports to a record.The gap fell 8.4 percent, the biggest decrease in almost 5 years, to $58.9 billion, the Commerce Department said today in Washington. The improvement came despite a record deficit with China, which surpassed Mexico as the nation's second-biggest trading partner.
A weaker dollar and growing demand from Europe and Asia may spur exports and limit weakness in manufacturing, which would help prevent the economy from sinking as housing slumps. Federal Reserve policy makers today will probably keep their interest- rate target steady as they count on more moderate growth to eventually bring down inflation.
Now before we get too excited, let's look inside the numbers and get an idea about the overall trend. Here's a 15-year chart of the trade deficit from the St. Louis Fed:
The chart indicates we have a serious long-term deterioration happening. One month won't change that.We're already $54,884 billion ahead of last year's January to October period. We're also only $73,290 billion behind last years total trade deficit. So we're still on target to set another record this year.
Imports increased 12% from 2004 -2005 while exports increased 10%. So far, exports for the January - October period have increased 13% while imports have increased 11.71%. So from a statistical perspective, exports will have to make a big jump to make a serous dent in the trade deficit.
Finally, there is oil. Oil is a big reason for the recent acceleration of the US trade deficit. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco did s study of the situation and made the following conclusion:
Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of 2004. One factor can explain this evolution: The real volume of U.S. petroleum imports has remained essentially constant. One explanation for why the demand for petroleum imports has not declined in response to higher prices comes from a model in which firms are fairly limited in their ability to adjust their use of energy sources, such as oil, in the short term.Of course, the mechanism underlying this model may imply that it could take a while for the U.S. trade deficit to adjust in response to persistently higher oil prices, as businesses need time to install new, less energy-intensive equipment. However, one positive and important implication is that eventually the U.S. economy will become more energy-efficient, which, in turn, would help contain the cost of oil imports and increase the economy's flexibility in absorbing future oil price increases.
While oil prices have dropped over the last few months, they are in a trading range between $60 -$64 a barrel. OPEC has announced one production cut and another one is rumored to be in the works. While the slowing US economy is a net negative for oil prices, China and India are growing at very fast rates putting upward pressure on oil. European and Japanese growth rates are increasing. In other words, there is a lot of macro-level support for oil prices at their current level.
So while the trade deficit's one month decrease is good news, there are still important structural reasons for the deficit to remain high for some time.



9 comments:
The big wig delegation to china will have made no headway in convincing the chinese to stop undervaluing their currency. While I think this is a part of the problem I think the main problem is the loss of a U.S. manufacturing base. At the risk of stating the obvious value added products have a positive effect on trade deficit numbers.
I agree
If we incrementally raised import duties until the trade deficit with a country fell within some percentage of total exports to that country (or areas for overseas FTAs), we don't have to worry about the Chinese pegging of the Yuan to a basket holding mostly Dollars.
And if that was by formula, on all MFNs, then given the US clout in the WTO it would have a good chance of being a non-discriminatory tariff to deal with a current account deficit, and allowed under WTO rules.
The Chinese, after all, have to peg at a discounted rate if they don't want the peg to be susceptible to attack by speculators. And they weren't the ones that broke the Bretton Woods system that allowed currencies to be pegged without steep discounting ... we were.
Slight error, the trade deficit is not $54,884 billion more than last year, it is $54,884 million/$54.884 billion. $54,884 billion is $54.884 trillion, more than 4 times the total GDP of the USA.
Great new blog, Bonddad, Tula, and Bruce. Congrats. I'll pass the word on, particularly to my own father who's passion is economics and investing He's been searching for savvy talk about these issues on the blogs. Until now, says he has come up short. Here we go!
Jude
Came here via FireDogLake... Doesn't bonddad post over at Burnt Orange Report as well? If so then I think I'll like this blog!
Texas hippie --
It's the same bonddad.
About the WTO correct me if I'm wrong (I very well may be)but I don't think we have ever won a WTO dispute even when it was called GATT. About MFN we never should have given them that in the first place. Human rights violations alone should have DQed them.
If by "we" you mean US corporations, "we" win WTO disputes all the time. For example, when the US lost a dispute on forbidding import of tuna fished with dolphin killing nets, we Americans lost, but "we" US coporations would have welcomed that decision.
Regarding the Chinese human rights record and MFN ... at the moment the US is in the status of borrower, which is not a position of economic strength to influence another country on human rights, and is widely seen by most people outside the US as violating the Geneva convention at Gitmo, which is not a position of moral authority to influence another country on human rights.
IOW, if you want the US to have leverage with China over human rights, then the current account deficit is a problem (as it is a problem for so many other things).
Post a Comment