As Trump wages trade war, U.S. goods deficit hits record high in 2018

By Lucia Mutikani

 

FILE PHOTO: A ship loaded with containers is pictured at Yusen Terminals (YTI) on Terminal Island at the Port of Los Angeles in Los Angeles, California, U.S., January 30, 2019. REUTERS/Mike Blake -/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. goods trade deficit surged to a record high in 2018 as strong domestic demand fueled by lower taxes pulled in imports, despite the Trump administration's "America First" policies, including tariffs, aimed at shrinking the trade gap.

 

President Donald Trump is pursuing a protectionist trade agenda to shield U.S. manufacturing from what he says is unfair foreign competition. Trump, who has dubbed himself "the tariff man," pledged on both the campaign trail and as president to reduce the deficit by shutting out more unfairly traded imports and renegotiating free trade agreements.

 

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that a 12.4 percent jump in the goods deficit in December had contributed to the record $891.3 billion goods trade shortfall last year. The overall trade deficit surged 12.5 percent to $621.0 billion in 2018, the largest since 2008.

 

"The trade deficit exploded last year despite the Trump administration efforts to make America great again, and the trend is unlikely to get any better in 2019," said Chris Rupkeychief economist at MUFG in New York.

 

The White House has argued that reducing the trade deficit would boost annual economic growth to its goal of 3 percent on a sustainable basis. The government also sought to stimulate the economy with a $1.5 trillion tax cut package, which jolted both consumer and business spending, helping to lift imported goods to a record $2.6 trillion in 2018.

 

The United States last year imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of goods imported from China, with Beijing hitting back with duties on $110 billion worth of American products, including soybeans and other commodities. Trump has delayed tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports as negotiations to resolve the eight-month trade war continue.

 

Businesses likely stocked up on imports in anticipation of further duties on Chinese goods, which ironically contributed to the deterioration in the trade deficit last year.

 

The goods trade deficit with China increased 11.6 percent to an all-time high of $419.2 billion in 2018. The United States, which also slapped duties on imported steel, aluminum, solar panels and washing machines, had record imports from 60 countries in 2018, led by China, Mexico and Germany.

 

"Perhaps Donald Trump will now discover that tweets and bluster alone won't dramatically shrink the trade deficit," said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Washington. "The administration's fiscal policies have helped to boost the trade deficit."

 

While goods exports hit a record $1.7 trillion in 2018, they declined in the last three months of the year, weighed by the U.S.-China trade dispute, slowing global demand and a strong dollar, which is making American-made goods less competitive on the international market.

 

The dollar was little changed against a basket of currencies, while U.S. Treasury prices rose. Stocks on Wall Street were trading lower as investors awaited fresh developments on the trade negotiations.

 

LABOR MARKET SLOWING

Economists expect exports to remain weak even if Washington and Beijing strike a trade deal.

 

"That will take time and if the Chinese growth is as soft as most economists believe, it is hard to see how they can ramp up demand for U.S. products very much this year," said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania.

 

A 1.9 percent drop in exports of goods and services drove the trade deficit in December to $59.8 billion, the largest since October 2008. Imports of goods and services increased 2.1 percent to $264.9 billion in December.

 

When adjusted for inflation, the goods trade deficit surged $10.0 billion to a record $91.6 billion in December.

 

The jump in the so-called real goods trade deficit suggests that the drag from trade on fourth-quarter gross domestic product growth was probably bigger than the 0.22 percentage point estimated by the government last week. Economists expect the government will revise down fourth-quarter GDP growth to a 2.3 percent annualized rate from the 2.6 percent it reported last Thursday.

 

Other data on Wednesday suggested some slowing in the labor market, though the pace of job gains remains more than enough to drive the unemployment rate down. The ADP National Employment Report showed private payrolls increased by 183,000 in February after surging 300,000 in January. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast private payrolls advancing 189,000 in February.

 

The ADP report, which is jointly developed with Moody's Analytics, was published ahead of the government's more comprehensive employment report for February scheduled for release on Friday.

 

The ADP report is not considered a reliable predictor of the private payrolls portion of the government's employment report because of differences in methodology.

 

February's report was, however, in line with other labor market data, including weekly applications for unemployment benefits and manufacturing and services sector surveys that have suggested some moderation in job growth following hefty gains in January.

 

"It looks broadly consistent with our view that job growth remained solid in February despite cooling from the boomy figures reported for the prior several months," said Daniel Silver, an economist at JPMorgan in New York.

 

According to a Reuters survey of economists, nonfarm payrolls likely increased by 180,000 jobs in February after jumping 304,000 in January. The unemployment rate is forecast falling to 3.9 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January.

 

(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Andrea Ricci)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-07

So much winning!

 

I'll explain this once more--the trade deficit is up because the federal deficit is up.  Foreigners love to hold US Treasuries.  They buy these treasuries using money they receive from our trade deficit.   If we weren't running a massive annual federal budget deficit then we would sell fewer treasuries.  The foreigners would have to do something else with the US dollars they make by selling stuff to us, something such as buying US goods.  That would lower the trade deficit.

 

Simple conclusion:  To lower the trade deficit we must lower the federal deficit.

 

This simple logic is clearly beyond many people, such as Trump and the Republicans in Congress.  Whenever Republicans are in power they raise the deficit.

Edited March 6, 20197 yr by heybruce

"Are we tired of winning yet"? LOL

Another big oops!

But but trade wars are easy to win

It wouldn't matter any progress will be swallowed whole by the ingenious NGD. We are moving away from being a nation that wants or desires profits. So it is a win the millionaires lost. 

 

"It looks broadly consistent with our view that job growth remained solid in February despite cooling from the boomy figures reported for the prior several months," said Daniel Silver, an economist at JPMorgan in New York.

 

According to a Reuters survey of economists, nonfarm payrolls likely increased by 180,000 jobs in February after jumping 304,000 in January. The unemployment rate is forecast falling to 3.9 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January.

 

Yup nobody won at all.

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

So much winning!

 

I'll explain this once more--the trade deficit is up because the federal deficit is up.  Foreigners love to hold US Treasuries.  They buy these treasuries using money they receive from our trade deficit.   If we weren't running a massive annual federal budget deficit then we would sell fewer treasuries.  The foreigners would have to do something else with the US dollars they make by selling stuff to us, something such as buying US goods.  That would lower the trade deficit.

 

Simple conclusion:  To lower the trade deficit we must lower the federal deficit.

 

This simple logic is clearly beyond many people, such as Trump and the Republicans in Congress.  Whenever Republicans are in power they raise the deficit.

Nice post you forget to include that the dems are also clueless to this point. Let's print a few trillion shall we? I would like to see a break down by month what happened to the trade deficit. I have no idea either way but the tariffs weren't in place the majority of the year.

 

With the strong dollar I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't matter or had an impact but still couldn't stave off the deficit. I have not noticed Chinese goods at Walmart or where ever else go up in price. At least not significantly. I generally stay away from such places though.

 

It's going to be a challenge for either party to do anything with China when Xi is the president for life. 

Edited March 6, 20197 yr by Cryingdick

49 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

According to a Reuters survey of economists, nonfarm payrolls likely increased by 180,000 jobs in February after jumping 304,000 in January. The unemployment rate is forecast falling to 3.9 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January.

 

This thread is about the ballooning trade deficit and not employment figures.

 

If you can't stay on topic just resist the urge to post unrelated stuff.

 

Some people are winning, some are losing. 

 

 

Blow to Trump as US trade deficit hits 10-year high

 

https://www.ft.com/content/93faa9b2-4012-11e9-b896-fe36ec32aece

 

Trump's Plan to Reduce Trade Deficit Falters as it Hits an All-Time High Instead

 

http://fortune.com/2019/03/06/us-trade-deficit-record-high/

 

 

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

This thread is about the ballooning trade deficit and not employment figures.

 

If you can't stay on topic just resist the urge to post unrelated stuff.

 

Some people are winning, some are losing. 

 

 

Blow to Trump as US trade deficit hits 10-year high

 

https://www.ft.com/content/93faa9b2-4012-11e9-b896-fe36ec32aece

 

Trump's Plan to Reduce Trade Deficit Falters as it Hits an All-Time High Instead

 

http://fortune.com/2019/03/06/us-trade-deficit-record-high/

 

 

 

the quote I made was from the main article. Make sure you read the entire article before you call people out. Thanks

Edited March 7, 20197 yr by Cryingdick
thought about taking the obnoxious video out of quote but maybe against forum rules

The last time I responded to an article from Reuters it was a dumpster fire about Microsoft. They do not seem to scrutinize anything these days. There are many holes and discrepancies on this one I won't bother to debunk.

18 minutes ago, car720 said:

I am old and almost dead so it doesn't matter to me.  I can sit back and just laugh at it all.  But, I do feel ever so sorry for the youth of today.  Poor buggers.  They may amass great wealth but they will never know life.

 

That's sort of a condescending thing to say. I am not an old man.

Make the deficit great again.

7 hours ago, webfact said:

"The trade deficit exploded last year despite the Trump administration efforts to make America great again, and the trend is unlikely to get any better in 2019," said Chris Rupkeychief economist at MUFG in New York.

Another Trump campaign promise, right down the toilet. 

On the BBC's Radio 4 yesterday morning we had Woody Johnson (Trumps muppet in London), saying any trade deal with the UK would have to include agriculture.

 

Quote

Washington's ambassador to the UK has defended the US's approach to food hygiene and farming.

Criticism of US food standards was "designed to reduce not increase trade", Woody Johnson told the BBC.

US beef and chicken producers use processes not permitted in the EU, including rinsing chicken carcasses with chlorine.

But Mr Johnson said the UK should accept American meat as part of a post-Brexit trade deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47466812

 

and went on to say... "we have the lowest levels of food poisoning".

 

Well seems he attended the same "Creative Speaking" classes as Trump and his cronies as the BBC soon got real experts on the subject to disprove him.

Quote

But that's not what the US figures say. The most common bacteria in chicken that cause food poisoning are campylobacter and salmonella. According to the US Centers for Disease Control, there are 1.3 million illnesses from campylobacter and 1.2 million illnesses from salmonella a year. That means about four in every thousand people get sick.

In 2017 Public Health England, which pulls together data from across the UK, recorded 63,946 confirmed cases of infection from campylobacter and 10,089 infections from salmonella. That's one in a thousand and 0.2 in a thousand people respectively.

So the US has four times as many confirmed cases of campylobacter per thousand people as the UK - and twenty times as many cases of salmonella. About 450 people die of salmonella a year in the US, whereas in the UK deaths are very rare

Is it more logical that the US raise it levels to that of the UK & EU? also Americas animal welfare is appalling compared to that of the UK & Europe 

 

The trade deficit in this case is indicative of a booming economy Americans have more money to spend on big ticket items which happen to be mostly made overseas. 

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

So much winning!

 

I'll explain this once more--the trade deficit is up because the federal deficit is up.  Foreigners love to hold US Treasuries.  They buy these treasuries using money they receive from our trade deficit.   If we weren't running a massive annual federal budget deficit then we would sell fewer treasuries.  The foreigners would have to do something else with the US dollars they make by selling stuff to us, something such as buying US goods.  That would lower the trade deficit.

 

Simple conclusion:  To lower the trade deficit we must lower the federal deficit.

 

This simple logic is clearly beyond many people, such as Trump and the Republicans in Congress.  Whenever Republicans are in power they raise the deficit.

You simplistic logic is badly flawed.  There is no evidence or reason that if there were less US treasuries for sale , countries that hold a dollar surplus would buy US made consumer goods.

They would probable go into the Euro/dollar market

 

The sad fact is that the US along with other pre 1980;s industrial countries ( eg UK), no longer produce consumer goods in any significant quantity.

The De industrialization and the rise of the parasitic Financialization of these countries since the 'golden ' Regan/Thatcher  era has seen to this.

 

The tax cuts or any other measure to increase the spending power of the consumer will only benefit China and other exporters to the US, rather then stimulate the US economy.

As would have been the case  when there was still a strong manufacturing base in the US.

Edited March 7, 20197 yr by rocketman777

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Nice post you forget to include that the dems are also clueless to this point. Let's print a few trillion shall we? I would like to see a break down by month what happened to the trade deficit. I have no idea either way but the tariffs weren't in place the majority of the year.

 

With the strong dollar I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't matter or had an impact but still couldn't stave off the deficit. I have not noticed Chinese goods at Walmart or where ever else go up in price. At least not significantly. I generally stay away from such places though.

 

It's going to be a challenge for either party to do anything with China when Xi is the president for life. 

If your wondering whether the tariffs had any effect maybe check with some American soy farmers.

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Nice post you forget to include that the dems are also clueless to this point. Let's print a few trillion shall we? I would like to see a break down by month what happened to the trade deficit. I have no idea either way but the tariffs weren't in place the majority of the year.

 

With the strong dollar I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't matter or had an impact but still couldn't stave off the deficit. I have not noticed Chinese goods at Walmart or where ever else go up in price. At least not significantly. I generally stay away from such places though.

 

It's going to be a challenge for either party to do anything with China when Xi is the president for life. 

You have information on what happened during one month from the article:

 

" The Commerce Department said on Wednesday that a 12.4 percent jump in the goods deficit in December had contributed to the record $891.3 billion goods trade shortfall last year. "

 

Trump started imposing major tariffs with the aluminum and steel tariffs in early March 2018, so his tariffs were in place for most of the year.  https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591744195/trump-expected-to-formally-order-tariffs-on-steel-aluminum-imports

 

However that is irrelevant.  You clearly don't understand my post, or economics, in spite of my clearly writing " To lower the trade deficit we must lower the federal deficit. "

 

Yes, the deficit did go up under Obama, but he was dealing with an economic meltdown inherited from Bush.  The deficit went down and went into surplus under Clinton, who had a good economy.  That is responsible government economic policy:  Stimulate the economy with deficit spending when the economy is weak, reduce the deficits when the economy is strong. 

 

Under Republicans the deficit goes up regardless of the state of the economy.  Bush inherited an economy in a mild recession with a budget surplus, he left office after approving a budget driving a $1.3 trillion deficit.  Trump took office with a strong economy and immediately started driving the deficit up.

 

Of course people who are stubbornly ignorant won't acknowledge such facts.

8 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

The last time I responded to an article from Reuters it was a dumpster fire about Microsoft. They do not seem to scrutinize anything these days. There are many holes and discrepancies on this one I won't bother to debunk.

In other words, you can't refute the facts but don't like them, so you will ignore them.

1 hour ago, Sakeopete said:

The trade deficit in this case is indicative of a booming economy Americans have more money to spend on big ticket items which happen to be mostly made overseas. 

So why would Trump call the US trade deficit "disgraceful" and vow to end it?  Nevermind, I'm sure you don't have a coherent answer. 

1 hour ago, rocketman777 said:

You simplistic logic is badly flawed.  There is no evidence or reason that if there were less US treasuries for sale , countries that hold a dollar surplus would buy US made consumer goods.

They would probable go into the Euro/dollar market

 

The sad fact is that the US along with other pre 1980;s industrial countries ( eg UK), no longer produce consumer goods in any significant quantity.

The De industrialization and the rise of the parasitic Financialization of these countries since the 'golden ' Regan/Thatcher  era has seen to this.

 

The tax cuts or any other measure to increase the spending power of the consumer will only benefit China and other exporters to the US, rather then stimulate the US economy.

As would have been the case  when there was still a strong manufacturing base in the US.

Are you disputing my claim that foreigners with US dollars to spare are buying US Treasuries?  If so, you are very wrong.

 

Are you suggesting that foreigners with US dollars will simply use them as a medium of exchange outside the US forever?  What a happy situation; we can buy all the worlds goods by printing dollars to pay for them and never worry about those dollars coming back the US to haunt us.

 

BTW:  There is more to the trade deficit than manufactured goods:

 

"Meanwhile, the surplus in services kept rising, hitting a record US$270.2 billion last year."   https://www.msn.com/en-my/finance/topstories/us-trade-gap-surged-to-us-24621-bil-in-2018-highest-in-decade/ar-BBUrAC3

1 hour ago, Sakeopete said:

The trade deficit in this case is indicative of a booming economy Americans have more money to spend on big ticket items which happen to be mostly made overseas. 

This is true to an extent , which shows that trade deficits are not straight forward. This was pointed out to Trump when he boasted of trade wars being easy to win , he ignored the professional advice of course.

The question is ; Does Trump simply act in order to sound tough to his base , regardless of the consequencies , or is he an economic simpleton ?

If the trade deficit continues sooner or later the USA will be poor as most other nations. Without POTUS and the trade war the deficit would be even worse, at least we can hope Trump wins. Of course, you can also hope Trump loses the trade war.

1 hour ago, IAMHERE said:

If the trade deficit continues sooner or later the USA will be poor as most other nations. Without POTUS and the trade war the deficit would be even worse, at least we can hope Trump wins. Of course, you can also hope Trump loses the trade war.

Look at that.

 

Trump sets out on a path to failure, in this case a trade war, last week nuclear disarmament.

 

Despite the evidence that he failed to plan and therefore plannned to fail.

 

You now cast the disgraceful assertion that those of us who can see his incompetence ‘can also hope Trjmp loses the trade war’.

 

Utterly disgraceful.

 

The fact is, with the exception of his illiberal supporters, we none of us wanted a trade war to start with.

 

Trump’s failing trade war.

 

You support it, you own it.

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

The last time I responded to an article from Reuters it was a dumpster fire about Microsoft. They do not seem to scrutinize anything these days. There are many holes and discrepancies on this one I won't bother to debunk.

Perhaps this article will be more to your liking and debunking prowess.

From FOX Business...

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/us-trade-deficit-jumps-to-10-year-high-in-2018

13 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

Nice post you forget to include that the dems are also clueless to this point. Let's print a few trillion shall we? I would like to see a break down by month what happened to the trade deficit. I have no idea either way but the tariffs weren't in place the majority of the year.

 

With the strong dollar I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't matter or had an impact but still couldn't stave off the deficit. I have not noticed Chinese goods at Walmart or where ever else go up in price. At least not significantly. I generally stay away from such places though.

 

It's going to be a challenge for either party to do anything with China when Xi is the president for life. 

The strong US dollar. That makes US exports more expensive. Econ 1A.

China has restrained itself so far in retaliation to Mr Trumps trade war.

That is because it is negotiating deals around the world to soften the impact of a trade war.

These new trade deals will be in place for years to come and in a few years China will not need many of US exports.

The big winners will be places like Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Africa and Asia  (already big futures in soy beans barley and so on to China from Australia)

Your president has just shot US in the foot. Soon it will be in the head.

Yay, Go USA. The agriculturists around the world love your president. Yippee doo Dumb. 

23 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

If the trade deficit continues sooner or later the USA will be poor as most other nations. Without POTUS and the trade war the deficit would be even worse, at least we can hope Trump wins. Of course, you can also hope Trump loses the trade war.

Did you by any chance get your degree in economics from Trump university ?

On 3/7/2019 at 2:22 PM, Sakeopete said:

The trade deficit in this case is indicative of a booming economy Americans have more money to spend on big ticket items which happen to be mostly made overseas. 

Donald Trump disagrees with you.

And it's also inidicative of increased budget deficits caused by more government spending and lower taxation.

Edited March 8, 20197 yr by bristolboy

On 3/7/2019 at 5:53 AM, neeray said:

"Are we tired of winning yet"? LOL

Oh yeah-so much it hurts 

On 3/6/2019 at 11:34 PM, heybruce said:

So much winning!

 

I'll explain this once more--the trade deficit is up because the federal deficit is up.  Foreigners love to hold US Treasuries.  They buy these treasuries using money they receive from our trade deficit.   If we weren't running a massive annual federal budget deficit then we would sell fewer treasuries.  The foreigners would have to do something else with the US dollars they make by selling stuff to us, something such as buying US goods.  That would lower the trade deficit.

 

Simple conclusion:  To lower the trade deficit we must lower the federal deficit.

 

This simple logic is clearly beyond many people, such as Trump and the Republicans in Congress.  Whenever Republicans are in power they raise the deficit.

President Donald Trump is pursuing a protectionist trade agenda to shield U.S. manufacturing from what he says is unfair foreign competition. Trump, who has dubbed himself "the tariff man," pledged on both the campaign trail and as president to reduce the deficit by shutting out more unfairly traded imports and renegotiating free trade agreements.