Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

sign up

Do not forget about imports

Brad Setser | Jan 2, 2008

Paul Krugman has caused quite a stir with a graph showing how rising exports have offset a sharp fall in residential investment since the end of 2005.  Since exports were about twice as a large a share of the economy as residential investment (at least back then, they are now almost three times as large), that implies that residential investment was falling about at about two times the rate exports were growing.  

But exports are only half the trade equation.    And the export boom didn’t start in late 2005.  It actually started back in mid-to-late 2003, when the dollar’s slide first started to have an impact.  In 2003, 2004 and 2005, both residential investment and exports were rising relative to GDP.

While the pace of export growth perhaps picked up a bit in late 2007, the overall pace of growth has actually been fairly steady.  The big change recently hasn’t been a sudden increase in the pace of export growth, but rather the deceleration of import growth, particularly non-oil imports.  That is what has allowed net exports to contribute to overall growth, offsetting the drag from the (sharp) fall in residential investment.

exports_and_imports_as__of_gdp_07.jpg

To be sure, an improvement in the trade deficit that stems from rising exports and stable imports is far better -- for the US, and for the world -- than an improvement in the trade deficit that stems from falling imports and stable exports.

Trade isn’t the only way the global economy impacts the US economy.   Investment income is also increasingly important – and something I want to explore in more detail over the course of the year.   Some of the rise in investment income (relative to GDP) is likely artificial – the “shadow banking system” did a lot of offshore intermediation for tax reasons.    Some of it is real – as Americans increased their holdings of foreign assets and foreigners (especially central banks and oil funds) increased their holdings of US assets.  And some of it reflects the rise in US interest rates since 2004 – as the following chart shows, investment income fell relative to GDP from 2002 to 2004, and then started to rise.

exports_imports_inv_income_07.jpg

The surprise, at least to me, is that the pace of increase in US payments to the rest of the world slowed in the first part of 2007 (it ticked up in q3).    Sure, US policy rates stopped rising and are now falling.    But that isn’t really what drives the data.   At least not yet.   And some of the impact of the fall in policy rates should be offset by higher spreads.

The real key is that the interest rate the US pays on its borrowing stopped rising and sort of stabilized at a rate well below the rate the US gets on its lending.    That really helps.  And it is a noticeable change from say 2000, when both rates were roughly the same.

Better not sell too many convertibles.

Over time, though, I still expect the small surplus in the income balance to disappear, though the US rate cutting cycle may slow the change.

And I am also convinced that tax arbitrage ends up overstating US imports (notably from Europe) and overstating US income receipts (notably from Europe), as firms do things like import Pepsi concentrate from Ireland to increase their offshore profits to cut their overall tax bill.   Absent these distortions, the US trade deficit would be a bit smaller (though still big) and the income balance likely would already show a deficit.

Comments
Over time, though, I still expect the small surplus in the income balance to disappear, though the US rate cutting cycle may slow the change. I also think it will disappear unless those BEA people find more dark matter via unexplained changes in accounting methodology. It also depends on the performance of foreign equity markets and the dollar. If other equity markets continue to outperform US ones and the dollar slides further down the gutter, this small surplus might last longer than we expect. Heck, we may get all three--accounting sorcery, decoupling, and a lame dollar.
Reply to this comment By Emmanuel on 2008-01-02 13:42:01
Since US Oil demand is relatively inelastic, also don't forget about energy imports. Frankly Americans have to change their over-consumption habits to consume less, waste less, and better protect the environment. The Japanese, Chinese, Europeans, or even Canadians don't drive around in massive Gas-Guzzler SUV vehicles. In New Jersey where it snows alot less than Canada, the suburban highways are clogged with hulking Hummers and Expedition SUVs. In even wealthy Toronto, Canadians don't drive gas-guzzler SUVs. It is pure insanity that Americans consumers drive 10 mpg US Army Hummers to commute to work here in New Jersey. Morristown NJ isn't Baghdad Iraq, and many Americans are lunatics who they think they are expressing their US patriotism by driving in gas-guzzler SUVs with imported fuel from the Middle East. Oil kicks off year by hitting $100 http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/02/markets/oil/index.htm P.S. I personally drive a hybrid Toyota Prius that gets me 45 mpg.
Reply to this comment By Dave Chiang on 2008-01-02 16:15:39
How is Japan different? (1) Few natural resources have forced its economy into higher skill levels i.e. engineering, manufacturing, designing. Finance is only a means to an end, not a means unto itself as in USA/UK. (2) High financial discipline since WW2; further embedded in national character by 90's recession. (3) High savings rate (4) Racial homogeneity, imported labor cannot obtain naturalization, restrictions on citizenship by other means (birth or marriage). Imported labor acts as natural barrier against labor market corrections. More Harmony. (5) Banks are less "innovative" but more risk adverse. Sounder capitalization than west. (6) Bushido temperament inculcated throughout nation emphasizing restraint, self-dicipline, integrity, refined skill, extreme loyalty, and most of all honor. Graft, corruption and illicit gain are viewed contemptuously. Loss of honor usually demands self-death or equivalent. (7) Public companies are less public than in west with many holding securities of others (long term--never brought to trade)in order to bolster capital and reduce market vagaries. So called NeMawari conglomerations. (8) Free market forces shaped and curbed by Ministry of Trade & Industry (MITI). Better oversight and management restrains present abuses seen in USA. (9) Reliance more upon pure wealth creation than palliatives via monetary or fiscal policy maneuvering or redistribution schemes. (10) Very, very low crime rate. (Both blue- and white-collar). Legal sector has much dimished hegemony comparatively; reduced bureaucratization. Ultimately the center of capital markets will probably shift first to Tokyo and then to China. America's weaknesses indulged by fiscal recklessness will soon overwhelm its few remaining strengths. It may have a few more dead-cat bounces left in it but the long term trend is one of erosion.
Reply to this comment By Anonymous on 2008-01-02 16:33:21
DC -- glad you have a prius. oil imports are not broken out explicitly in the chart, but the gap between non-oil and total imports give some sense of the size of us oil imports.
Reply to this comment By bsetser on 2008-01-02 16:34:21
Anyone catch Republican Congressman Ron Paul on CNBC television the other night. On the Greenspan-Bernanke Federal Reserve, Ron Paul states that the Fed operates like the Central Intelligence Agency by keeping their economic monetary policy decisions "top secret" from the American public in order to exclusively benefit the special interest group of Wall Street bankers. Are you listening Robert Rubin?
Reply to this comment By Dave Chiang on 2008-01-02 16:42:19
DC -- your last comment was off-topic. Anonymous -- also a bit off topic. but i cannot resist something of a response. at one time, the Japanese banks took a ton of real-estate/ equity market related risks. They learned the hard way. I am not sure that this is a cultural thing -- banks and bank regulators go through cycles. until very recently, the banks were still trying to work of the legacy of the bubble economy. and right now japanese housewives are supposedly rather keen on fx risk ... note -- that the trade balance and income balance (and subcomponents of these balances) are topic of this post.
Reply to this comment By bsetser on 2008-01-02 17:44:44
I am not certain why anonymous bought up the points about Japan, but since he did, and since he (perhaps unintentionally) glossed over some points, it is worth asking the question: How ELSE is Japan different? (1) Their fertility rates imply that they are making fewer babies than any other nation in the world and will soon confront a massive demographic challenge for the economy. (2) Savings rates are deteriorating quite quickly and are converging upon (and crashing through) OECD median. (3) They have the worlds' most god-awful fiscal policy yielding the highest total debt-to-gdp ratio in the OECD - higher than the OECD nations with the worst political systems - the US and Italy, and higher than that nation with a political system so atrocious it cannot even form a government, which is Belgium. (4) They hunt and kill the most magnificent of mammals - Whales and dolphins - with glee, and a proffer a pack-of-the-most-absurd-of-lies about it being for the sake of science. (5) Long-term view has its downside as it takes forever for them change their policy when they are WRONG, which happens. (6) Most racist and xenophobic of any nation in Asia, perhaps the world - truly a fine place to do business where foreigns feel "welcome", right? (7) They are the originator of the pursuit of parasitic international and mercantile policies for parochial advantage that ultimately will prove responsible for the demise of Bretton Woods (and successor) systems and eventually set world trade back several decades. As for the center of global finance gravitating to Tokyo, I would venture almost everyone - including the more innovative Japanese themselves - prefers Singapore.
Reply to this comment By Cassandra on 2008-01-02 17:50:09
Hi Brad and the rest of this blog readers. Happy new year to all of you. I've been out for a long time, but it's nice that most people is on here, our incombustible DC apart. I take off my hat to you, Brad, for your are a good teacher and polite as nobody else. Keep it as far you are able, and we all will congratulate you. Thank you for sharing your info in this blog, Brad, and I hope that not only P. Kruman and the Economist will come to learn by free, to your great blog. I have to say to Cassandra that I read regularly her/his (does it matter the sex?) blog, and I like it, although the writing style is not very easy for an english learner as me. Anyway, Cassandra, I'd like to see some description of Japan's "close" society and their general behavior, out of your hard criticism to anonymous (very well-come, BTW). As we say in here, we all are martians (not only those Japanese people). Sorry, Cassandra. XXX. Kisses to you all.
Reply to this comment By koteli on 2008-01-02 22:42:25
I meant "closed". Sorry.
Reply to this comment By koteli on 2008-01-02 22:45:00
And I also meant that globally we all are sub-prime citizens, Japanese or not, some professors and MM apart. Good nightware!
Reply to this comment By koteli on 2008-01-02 22:54:06
This may be dumb to ask about the first graph, but other than residential investment, what other elements of GDP fell? (If exports, import(s) rose, then other elements of GDP must have fallen as a percentage of GDP.) Eyeballing the graph and using 2003 as a marker, the sum of all graphed items show a net gain of about 8% of GDP. (Residential investment: -1%; exports[g/s]: + 3%; non-oil imports: +2%; imports [g/s]: + 4%) What fell?
Reply to this comment By Stormy on 2008-01-02 23:06:22
relative to 2003, the fiscal deficit fell. and be careful, non-oil imports are a component of overall imports, so they shouldn't be added together and there is no reason why imports and exports (i.e. trade) couldn't both rise as a share of GDP. to get a real sense of what is driving growth, it probably would be better to show everything in dollars or inflation-adjusted dollars or something --
Reply to this comment By bsetser on 2008-01-02 23:47:47
Brad, do you know if someone tried to measure tax optimization impact on things like growth?
Reply to this comment By Laurent GUERBY on 2008-01-03 15:21:21
laurent -- i do not know.
Reply to this comment By bsetser on 2008-01-03 18:58:15

Post A Comment

You must be logged into the site to post a comment. You may login with your username and password in the upper right hand corner of this page. If you do not have a login, you may register for an account.