Tags
Canada & Mexico January-June 2015-2017, First Round of NAFTA Renegotiations August 2017, U.S. International Trade in Goods & Services January-June 2015-2017, U.S. Top Exports in Goods 2016 by Sector, U.S. Top Exports in Services 2016 by Product Category, U.S. Top Imports in Goods 2016 by Sector, U.S. Top Imports in Services 2016 by Product Category, U.S. Total Exports & Imports of Goods & Services 2008-2016, U.S. Trade in Goods with China, U.S. Trade in Goods with Top Four Partners 2016, USITC Trade Report 2016 (published July 2017)
During the past week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated events that will impact our trade relations with our top three trading partners—China, Canada, and Mexico.
On August 16th, USTR Robert Lighthizer opened the First Round of NAFTA Renegotiations with our Canadian and Mexican counterparts, a promise made by President Trump during his presidential campaign. In his Opening Statement, Ambassador Lighthizer noted:
This is a 23-year-old agreement and our economies are very different than they were in the 1990’s. We need to modernize or create provisions which protect digital trade and services trade, e-commerce, update customs procedures, protect intellectual property, improve energy provisions, enhance transparency rules, and promote science-based agricultural trade.
He pointed out that, while many Americans have benefited from NAFTA, “[w]e cannot ignore the huge trade deficits, the lost manufacturing jobs, the businesses that have closed or moved because of incentives — intended or not — in the current agreement.”
Two days later, on August 18th, the United States formally initiated an investigation into China’s trade practices and policies. In his press release, Ambassador Lighthizer said:
On Monday [08/14/17], President Trump instructed me to look into Chinese laws, policies, and practices which may be harming American intellectual property rights, innovation, or technology development.
As the captioned chart (prepared by Rosaliene Bacchus) of U.S. Total Imports & Exports of Goods & Services 2008-2016 indicates, the volume of US trade by value has been in slow decline since 2014. According to the U.S. Trade Report 2016, released in July 2017 by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), America’s economic growth, like that of the global economy, slowed in 2016. U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) increased 1.6 percent compared to a 2.6 increase in 2015. This deceleration of growth is largely reflected in a downturn in private domestic investment and slowing expenditures on personal consumption.
When compared to 2015, our total exports of goods valued at $1.4 trillion in 2016 fell 3.3 percent. Imports of goods amounting to $2.1 trillion fell 2.6 percent. Only the agricultural products sector performed well, with a trade surplus of $9.3 billion.
Here are the highlights of the top three performing sectors in U.S. trade in 2016 (with percent of total trade):
U.S. Top Exports in Goods 2016 by Sector
- Transportation equipment – $319.3 billion (22%)
- Electronic products – $260.5 billion (18%)
- Chemicals & related products – $218.1 billion (15%)
U.S. Top Imports in Goods 2016 by Sector
- Electronic products – $450.1 billion (20.5%)
- Transportation equipment – $418.3 billion (19.1%)
- Chemicals & related products – $259.9 billion (11.9%)
U.S. Top Exports in Services 2016 by Product Category
- Travel services – $206.8 billion (28.2%)
- Charges for use of intellectual property – $122.2 billion (16.7%)
- Financial services – $96.8 billion (13.2%)
U.S. Top Imports in Services 2016 by Product Category
- Travel services – $121.5 billion (25.2%)
- Insurance services – $48.4 billion (10%)
- Use of intellectual property – $42.7 billion (8.9%)
U.S. Trade in Goods with Top Four Partners 2016
- European Union (EU) – As a single entity, the EU continued to be the U.S. largest merchandise trading partner, with total trade (exports & imports) valued at $687 billion or 18.9 percent of total merchandise trade.
- China – For the second consecutive year, China remained the largest single-country trading partner.
– Total trade $578.6 billion (15.9%)
– Exports to China $115.8 billion
– Imports from China $462.8 billion
– Trade deficit $347 billion
- Canada – Second-largest single-country trading partner after China for the second consecutive year.
– Total trade $544 billion (14.9%)
– Exports to Canada $266 billion
– Imports from Canada $278.1 billion
– Trade deficit $12.1 billion
- Mexico – Third-largest single-country trading partner.
– Total trade $525.1 billion (14.4%)
– Exports to Mexico $231 billion
– Imports from Mexico $294.2 billion
– Trade deficit $63.2 billion
While it is still early to determine how much the Trump presidency has affected trade returns, a comparison of U.S. International Trade in Goods & Services over the period January to June 2015-2017, provided by the United States Census Bureau of the U.S. Department of Commerce, reveals a recovery in both exports and imports as shown in the chart below (prepared by Rosaliene Bacchus).
The following chart (prepared by Rosaliene Bacchus) provides a closer look at the trade figures over the same period for our top three single-country partners – China, Canada, and Mexico.
Time will tell if our current trade war with our major trading partners will have the desired effect of bringing manufacturing jobs back to America and reducing our international trade deficit.
drgeraldstein said:
I am not optimistic. The only merchandise we can reliably export at this point is chaos.
LikeLike
Sha'Tara said:
Yes, chaos Trump style…
LikeLike
drgeraldstein said:
Precisely, Sha’Tara.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Indeed, Sha’Tara!
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
I have to agree, Dr. Stein. We have perfected the art of creating and spreading chaos. It was just a matter of time for our prized merchandise to be re-shipped to our ports.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sha'Tara said:
As long as the greedy 1% continue to hoard the lion’s share – and more – of the nation’s wealth in terms of resources and labour – keeping in mind that there is no other tangible wealth useful in talking trade – that’s how long the downward trend will continue to plunge and exacerbate. It’s not trade deals that determine a nation’s well-being, but fairness or equitability, something the US have never engage in; never experienced and currently have no intention of trying out. The other obvious problem with the US economy is the hemmorhage of wealth caused by its military. The US government can dicker with trade deals and piss off even more people who are currently its “trading parners” if not its friends, but that will only push the nation deeper into debt and final entropy. As a non-American only too aware of the one-way deals foisted upon Canada over the years, the thought of America plundering itself economically feels quite pleasant. As I’m fond f quoting, we do reap what we sow, even if the crop sometimes takes a while to rise in the blighted, blasted fields. Not unlike Rome of its latter days, Ameria has become the bane of nations and the #1 enemy of the planet. Nuf’ said, McDuff…
LikeLike
Sha'Tara said:
Just learning to type on a new blue-tooth keyboard for the tablet, so some “expected” typos up there, none serious enough to detract from the meaning, I think.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
I agree with all the points you’ve raised, Sha’Tara. Our trade deals were and continue to be designed for the benefit of the large corporations. The well-being of we-the-people is of little consequence, unless it serves their ends. Our Deal-maker in Chief ignores the complexity of our trade deals and their unintended consequences that return to bite us.
LikeLike
Robert A. Vella said:
Excellent information, thanks Ros.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
You’re welcome, Robert.
LikeLiked by 1 person
guyaneseonline said:
Reblogged this on Guyanese Online.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks for the re-blog, Cyril. Have a great week 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: U.S. International Trade Update – By Rosaliene Bacchus
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks for sharing my post 🙂
LikeLike
jfwknifton said:
Britain is having exactly the same problem, with factories moved abroad to make use of exploited poverty stricken workers. Very few of the ordinary people of Britain agree with this because we are on the side of the exploited as, no doubt, are most ordinary Americans..
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks for dropping by, John. From what I read in the news, Britain also faces the uncertainty of its future trade relations with the EU after Brexit.
LikeLike
katharineotto said:
Rosaliene,
Excellent information, but the implications worry me. I believe the industrial age has peaked, and large factories have seen their best days. I’m fine with exporting manufacturing and its toxic waste. Can we export fracking to China? On the other hand, why are we raising chickens and other farm animals for export here, leaving the waste of factory farms behind? Let the Chinese raise their own chickens.
On the import side, we need to cut back on importing cheap plastic junk made by slave labor in China. Toys, tools with plastic handles, lawn chairs and products with plastic joints and other stress points. Single-use packaging out the wazoo. Designed to litter or break, and dangerous when they do.
I’m not happy with USTR Ambassador Lighthizer’s commitment to “promote science-based agricultural trade,” which tells me he wants to pollute the whole world with chemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and genetically mutated foods. We’re doing a good enough job of poisoning ourselves without ruining the rest of the world, too. Next time you speak with him, would you ask him to back off the promotion of “science-based agricultural trade”? Agriculture did quite well for millennia before “science” got its greedy hands on it.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Katharine, I was also struck by Lighthizer’s comment about “science-based agricultural trade.” Sorry, but I’m not privileged to have face time with our trade representative 🙂
I agree, we should reduce our imports of cheap plastic junk. If we-the-consumers stop buying the stuff, retailers who sell these products would be forced to cut back.
LikeLiked by 1 person
katharineotto said:
Rosaliene, We continue on the same page. I’m glad you noticed that bad apple (“science-based agricultural trade”) in Lighthizer’s wish list of trade desires.
Regarding we-the-consumers buying junk, we can put the agro-chemicals on the list of what not to buy at Home Depot and Wal-Mart. Roundup (glyphosate) is prominently displayed on the shelves.
LikeLike
Cakeordeath said:
Great figure Rosaliene. I am also not hopeful, we need to get away from this mania for continual and massive Year on in growth. The UK can expect a massive influx of GM foods and chlorinated chickens from the US after Brexit. GM foods are currently banned in the EU. Anyway great job Rosaliene
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks, Cake. Without the bargaining strength of the EU, Britain will have less leverage when negotiating a trade deal with the US. Regional trade blocks developed for leveling the playing field, a lesson the British people seem to have forgotten. Should the EU collapse, the future of individual member states would be bleak indeed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cakeordeath said:
The EU as a trading block was responsible for the shift of economic power from the US in the early 90’s, before it migrated eastward to China in the early years of this century. Marx was right, the problem with capitalism is capital, it just flows without respect of borders or consequences. People just remember what they want to remember, and falsely at that. It is very tempting (though it isn’t nearly the whole picture and is a wee bit too pat) to see the resurgence of nationalism as wounded imperial pride. In the 30’s you had Spain (never had such an massive empire been so reduced) Italy with its Ethiopian debacle and Germany who rued the empire that never was. England and France still had imperial possessions and largely resisted the drift towards fascism. Now you have the UK with Brexit, France’s flirtation with the Front Nationale, and Trump and Bannon in the US with their ‘economic nationalism’ whatever that is when it at home. Is nationalism just lose of prestige? Not saying it is but food for thought. Great data again Rosaliene.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks for the historical update, Cake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cakeordeath said:
Sorry I do tend to drone on a bit
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
No apologies needed, Cake 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cakeordeath said:
Thank you for your understanding. Just remember to check me in future before I go into excruciating tangents.
LikeLike
The Student Economist said:
An interesting article! If you would like to see more ideas about economics, be sure to visit our blog. Your likes are invaluable to us.
LikeLike
Rosaliene Bacchus said:
Thanks for dropping by 🙂
LikeLike