Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713e.jpg" width="353">
Surging petroleum prices fueled a 1.0% jump in overall import prices last month. The jump was about equal to the May rise and easily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.6% gain. 
The increase occurred as petroleum import prices surged 4.7% in June after sharp increases during five of the prior six months. Further increases in July in the price of Brent crude oil to $77.12 from an average $71.0 during June promise another price gain this month.
Less petroleum import prices rose a modest 0.2 following the May jump of 0.5%. During the last ten years there has been a 66% (negative) correlation between the nominal trade-weighted exchange value of the US dollar vs. major currencies and the y/y change in non oil import prices. The correlation is a lower 47% against a broader basket of currencies. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713f.jpg" width="353">
Why a Dollar Depreciation May Not Close the U.S. Trade Deficit from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is available <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci13-5/ci13-5.html">here</a>
Prices for industrial supplies &amp; materials surged 2.6% (4.4% y/y) due to surge in oil prices. Less oil these prices rose 0.5% (7.5% y/y). 
Capital goods prices rose 0.2% (-0.1% y/y) after no change in May. Computers, peripheral and semiconductors fell 0.1% (-5.2% y/y) and less high tech, capital goods prices were unchanged (3.1% y/y). Prices for nonauto consumer goods were unchanged (1.5% y/y).
Export prices rose 0.3%. Nonagricultural export prices rose just 0.1% (2.9% y/y). 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA)</a></th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>1.0%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>5.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>4.7%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>20.6%</td>
<td>37.6%</td>
<td>30.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export- All Commodities</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
<td>3.6%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Surging petroleum prices fueled a 1.0% jump in overall import prices last month. The jump was about equal to the May rise and easily beat Consensus expectations for a 0.6% gain. The increase occurred as petroleum import prices surged [...]

U.S. Import Prices Jumped Again in June

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713c.jpg" width="353">
The U.S. federal government ran a surplus of $27.5B last month versus a deep deficit during May. Last month&#146;s surplus was up from the June 2006 figure of $20.B.
The monthly figure was near Consensus expectations for a surplus of $30B. Analysts&#39; forecasts of the Federal budget benefit from access to the Government&#39;s Daily Treasury Statement, the data for which is available in Haver&#39;s DAILY database.
The latest Midsession Review of the Budget can be found <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/">here</a>
The June budget figures pulled the deficit for the first three quarters of FY07 to $121B, down from $206.5B during last fiscal year&#39;s first nine months. <img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713d.jpg" width="353">
Net revenues grew 7.5% y/y during the first nine months of FY07. Individual income tax receipts (44% of total receipts) grew 11.5%. Corporate income taxes (13% of total receipts) were down sharply as were estate &amp; gift taxes. Higher employment levels raised employment contributions by 4.2%.
U.S. net outlays grew 2.5% during this fiscal year&#39;s first nine months versus last year driven by a 5.6% rise in defense spending (19% of total outlays). Medicare expenditures (12% of outlays) surged by14.7% while social security spending (21% of outlays) rose 5.7%. The government&#39;s interest expense rose by 4.6% y/y as interest rates have risen. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E106021.HTM">US Government Finance</a> &nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">FYTD 2007</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2006</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>$27.5B</td>
<td>$-67.7B</td>
<td>$20.5B (6/06)</td>
<td>-$247.7</td>
<td>-$318.7B</td>
<td>-$412.7B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Net Revenues</td>
<td>$276.5B</td>
<td>$164.2B</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>7.5%</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
<td>14.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Net Outlays</td>
<td>$206.6B</td>
<td>$231.9B</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
<td>7.8%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

The U.S. federal government ran a surplus of $27.5B last month versus a deep deficit during May. Last months surplus was up from the June 2006 figure of $20.B. The monthly figure was near Consensus expectations for a surplus of $30B. [...]

U.S. Budget Reverses May Shortfall

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713a.jpg" width="353">
In June, US retail sales fell 0.9% after a 1.5% gain during May that was revised from 1.4%. The figure for last month fell short of Consensus expectations for a modest 0.1% rise.
Excluding autos, retail sales fell 0.4% but a revised 1.6% rise during May was initially reported as up 1.3%.Expectations were for a 0.2% increase.
Nonauto retail sales less gasoline fell 0.3% (+4.6% y/y) last month after a revised 1.3% spurt during May, initially reported at up 1.0%.
Sales by motor vehicle &amp; parts dealers fell 2.9% (+2.0% y/y), even though new unit vehicle sales fell 3.5% m/m<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070713b.jpg" width="353">
Gasoline service station sales fell 1.1% after a 4.1% surge during May which reflected a 10.6% ruse in gas prices at the pump which then fell 2.9% during June to an average $3.06 per gallon (5.9% y/y).
Sales of discretionary items were generally firm last month. Sales at general merchandise stores added 0.3% (4.8% y/y) after an upwardly revised 1.0% May increase.Apparel store sales fell 1.4% (+4.8% y/y) after a 2.5% spurt during May. Furniture, home furnishings &amp; appliance stores posted one of weakest showings last month with a 2.2% (-0.1% y/y) decline after a modest 0.7% May rise.
Building material sales fell 2.3%% (-0.1% y/y). Sales of nonstore retailers (internet &amp; catalogue) rose 1.2% (9.5% y/y) but restaurant and bar sales rose only 0.1% (5.9% y/y) after a 0.6% May increase 
How Worrisome Is a Negative Saving Rate? From the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can be found <a href="http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci13-4/ci13-4.html"> here</a>. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">June</th>
<th scope="col">May</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a></td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>6.2%</td>
<td>6.6%</td>
<td>6.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>-0.4%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
<td>7.6%</td>
<td>7.1%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

In June, US retail sales fell 0.9% after a 1.5% gain during May that was revised from 1.4%. The figure for last month fell short of Consensus expectations for a modest 0.1% rise. Excluding autos, retail sales fell 0.4% but a revised [...]

U.S. June Retail Sales Fell After Huge Gain in May

Carol Stone, CBE

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070712f.jpg" width="353">
Industrial output in India has accelerated markedly over the last couple of years. In the data for May, published today in Mumbai by the Central Statistical Organization, the gain was 11.1% from May 2006 and that actually disappointed some analysts, who had hoped for a repeat of April&#39;s 12.4% year-to-year growth.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070712g.jpg" width="353">
This is a sustained period of good growth, but India has seen prior periods of rapid expansion: the late 1980s and the mid-1990s are seen in the first graph here, which takes a long view. Since India has been known for its rapid growth as a center for the service sector, we compare growth in manufacturing to that in gross value added in trade, hotels and communications. We see in the second graph that sector did surpass manufacturing production growth from 2001 to 2004, but manufacturing has picked up considerably since early 2006 as services simply maintained their pace.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070712h.jpg" width="353">
Big increases in India&#39;s industry have come in the metal products and machinery industries, and in the classification of goods by end use, it is capital goods that have shown by far the most growth. Because monthly activity is subject to wide swings, we judged recent comparative performance by calculating 6-month moving averages and taking the year-to-year growth in those. By that measure in May, capital goods output has risen 19.3%, while intermediate materials are up 12.5% and consumer goods by 11.2%. By industry, other outsized gains have taken place in plastics and petroleum refining, food, textiles and wood products.
Heavy industry has thus become increasingly important in India. We find this somewhat surprising; as we noted here last week for Germany, we often have the impression that China and other East Asian countries have all the growth in these sectors. But in fact there seems to be enough high tech heavy equipment demand to go around and construction projects in many places, especially right there in India, which require heavy metal forms and parts. So unlike the analysts and reporters who noticed a slight downtick in total production growth in May, we&#39;d see instead the continuation of very rapid pace. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">INDIA Industrial Production</th>
<th scope="col">May 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2007</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 2007</th>
Calendar Year Averages
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">2006</td>
<td>2005</td>
<td>2004</td>
<td>2000- 2003</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Total Index, NSA, FY93/94=100</td>
<td>264.2</td>
<td>253.1</td>
<td>288.5</td>
<td>239.6</td>
<td>216.7</td>
<td>200.8</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Mo/Mo % Change, SA</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>-1.0</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>--</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Yr/Yr % Change, NSA</td>
<td>11.1</td>
<td>12.4</td>
<td>14.5</td>
<td>10.5</td>
<td>7.9</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>5.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Industrial output in India has accelerated markedly over the last couple of years. In the data for May, published today in Mumbai by the Central Statistical Organization, the gain was 11.1% from May 2006 and that actually disappointed [...]

India's Industrial Production Up "Only" 11.1% in May

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070711f.jpg" width="353">
The Czech Republic and Hungary are not far apart in Central Europe, but their respective consumer price behaviors put them seemingly at the other end of the continent from each other. In the Czech Republic in June, the total CPI rose 0.3%, putting the last 12 months up 2.4%. Core inflation there was a mere 0.1% in June, following none at all in May, and a modest 1.2% over the year earlier. In Hungary by contrast, total CPI and the core rate both were 0.4% in June; total CPI was up 8.7% from the year earlier and the core, 5.9%.
&quot;Core&quot; in Hungary is defined as the total less most energy items, unprocessed foods and regulated prices. In the Czech Republic, the &quot;core&quot; excludes only regulated prices and tax and other administrative items. Both countries&#39; data are contained in Haver&#39;s EMERGECW database.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070711g.jpg" width="353">
Examination of the CPI categories in each country reveals that inflation is both higher and more widespread in Hungary. Nearly all segments show faster 12-month rates there. Food is up 10.3% year/year compared with 2.5% in the Czech Republic. Transport costs in June were 3.5% higher in Hungary and a mere 0.1% in the Czech Republic. Also, even a more discretionary component like recreation and culture rose 3.3% in Hungary but just 0.8% in Czech Republic. Communications prices stand out as an exception: they&#39;ve been falling in Hungary, and in June were 4.1% below last year, while in the Czech Republic they&#39;ve inched up 0.2% in the last 12 months and are now also declining, but only slightly.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070711h.jpg" width="353">
All this said, we can&#39;t form broad conclusions about inflation prospects in either country. On a month-to-month basis, housing and transportation expenses are picking up in the Czech Republic: housing by 0.5 - 0.7% a month since April and transportation 0.8 - 1.0%. These calls into question how long the low inflation trend may be sustained there. Both these moves may represent stronger fuel prices. This is the case in Hungary for housing-related fuels, with natural gas up a dramatic 42% from year-ago amounts. The path of gasoline prices there has veered differently, however, and those prices went down sharply last autumn at the time natural gas prices were being raised. Clothing, an item with perhaps more flexible local markets than energy, is widely varying in both countries, and its performance within each country differs markedly from month-to-month. It looked, for example, that in the Czech Republic, those prices were on a rising trend in the early part of this year. But May and June have seen renewed declines, so perhaps the trend isn&#39;t shifting after all. The same swing has occurred in Hungary, but with a lead of about 3 months over the Czechs. So the recent performances of various prices in both countries are so disparate that we find a consistent inflation scenario within each one almost impossible to discern, let alone something common to both. 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">Consumer Price Indexes, % Changes</th>
<th scope="col">June 2006*</th>
<th scope="col">May 2006*</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 2006*</th>
<th scope="col">Year Ago</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Czech Republic</td>
<td>0.3</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>2.4</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.8</td>
<td>2.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &quot;Core&quot;</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.0</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="8">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Hungary</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>8.7</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>6.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; &quot;Core&quot;</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>2.1</td>
<td>5.8</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Czech Republic and Hungary are not far apart in Central Europe, but their respective consumer price behaviors put them seemingly at the other end of the continent from each other. In the Czech Republic in June, the total CPI rose [...]

CPI in Hungary and Czech Republic: Up, Down or Sideways?

Louise Curley

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070710f.jpg" width="353">
China&#39;s trade surplus was a record $26.9 billion in June, an increase of $9.5 billion from May and $12.4 billion from June, 2006. For the first half of this year the surplus was $112.7 billion almost twice the size of the surplus in the first half of 2006--$61.0 billion.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070710g.jpg" width="353">
The June balance with the United States was $14.1 billion, or 52% of the total. In relative terms, the balance with the United States has declined over the years. In much of 2003-2005, the trade surplus with the U.S. exceeded that of the total trade balance as can be seen in the first chart. Since then China&#39;s increasing surplus on trade with Europe has muted the relative importance of the U.S. surplus. The second chart show the growing trade surpluses with the U.S. and Europe.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070710h.jpg" width="353">
Nevertheless, it is the magnitude of the absolute value of the surplus with the U.S. that is the cause of increasing acrimony over trade policy between the two countries. Recently, added to the calls for more rapid yuan appreciation, there have been complaints regarding tainted or defective products such as fish, tooth paste and tires. These products, however, do not loom large in total exports. While data on tires are not available separately, they would amount to considerably less than the $961.3 million of Auto Parts and Accessories for May. Live and frozen fish exports amounted to $282.2 million in May and preparations for oral hygiene, $10.6 million out of total exports of $94.6 billion.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070710i.jpg" width="353">
Of the $103.2 billion exports in June, the major exports were Textiles, Yarns and Fabrics, which were $4.7 billion; Garments and Clothing Accessories ($11.6 billion); Hi-Tech Products ($28.1 billion) and Mechanical and Electrical Products ($55.8 billion). These are shown in the third chart. Of the $76.0 imports in June, the two largest categories were Hi-Tech Products ($22.2 billion) and Mechanical and Electrical Products ($39.1 billion) as seen in the fourth chart. The fact that these last two categories figure in both imports and exports suggests that assembly plays a large part in China&#39;s manufacturing sector.Note: Haver has two China data bases: CHINA--CEIC Premium China Data Base and China in EMERGEPR. The CHINA data base is the more comprehensive, containing not only much of the data in EMERGEPR, but a wealth of other data. In addition to seasonally adjusted data in the CHINA database, some of the China data in EMERGEPR has been adjusted, by Haver, for the yearly variation in the Chinese New Year as well. Sometimes, there are minor differences in updating the series. For example, the China data on trade by country in EMERGEPR are today available for June while the latest data in CHINA are for May.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">CHINA TRADE (BIL $)&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jun 07</th>
<th scope="col">May 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Apr 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>103.2</td>
<td>94.1</td>
<td>97.5</td>
<td>83.4</td>
<td>82.1</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>969.3</td>
<td>762.3</td>
<td>593.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>76.4</td>
<td>71.6</td>
<td>80.6</td>
<td>76.6</td>
<td>58.3</td>
<td>70.7</td>
<td>791.8</td>
<td>660.2</td>
<td>590.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance</td>
<td>26.9</td>
<td>22.5</td>
<td>16.8</td>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>23.8</td>
<td>15.9</td>
<td>177.5</td>
<td>102.1</td>
<td>32.8</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance with US</td>
<td>14.1</td>
<td>12.6</td>
<td>12.5</td>
<td> 9.5</td>
<td>12.2</td>
<td> 13.0</td>
<td>144.3</td>
<td>114.2</td>
<td>80.3</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance with Europe</td>
<td>10.9</td>
<td>10.6</td>
<td>9.1</td>
<td> 6.3</td>
<td>12.6</td>
<td> 9.7</td>
<td>100.4</td>
<td>69.3</td>
<td>33.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="10">Major Commodity Exports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;Textiles, Yarn, Fabrics etc</td>
<td>4.6</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>4.0</td>
<td>48.8</td>
<td>41.1</td>
<td>33.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Garments &amp; Clothing Accessories</td>
<td>11.6</td>
<td>8.5</td>
<td>8.0</td>
<td>4.7</td>
<td>7.4</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>95.2</td>
<td>73.9</td>
<td>61.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Hi Tech Products</td>
<td>28.1</td>
<td>24.3</td>
<td>26.2</td>
<td>28.5</td>
<td>22.9</td>
<td>23.0</td>
<td>281.6</td>
<td>218.4</td>
<td>165.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Mechanical &amp; Electrical Products&nbsp;</td>
<td>55.8</td>
<td>52.1</td>
<td>54.7</td>
<td>51.7</td>
<td>46.8</td>
<td>48.8</td>
<td>549.6</td>
<td>427.0</td>
<td>323.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="10">Major Commodity Imports</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Mechanical &amp; Electrical Products</td>
<td>39.1</td>
<td>35.89</td>
<td>10.7</td>
<td>39.7</td>
<td>30.8</td>
<td>37.1</td>
<td>428.1</td>
<td>350.4</td>
<td>301.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Hi Tech Products</td>
<td>22.2</td>
<td>20.5</td>
<td>23.2</td>
<td>23.0</td>
<td>18.4</td>
<td>20.7</td>
<td>247.4</td>
<td>197.7</td>
<td>161.3</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

China's trade surplus was a record $26.9 billion in June, an increase of $9.5 billion from May and $12.4 billion from June, 2006. For the first half of this year the surplus was $112.7 billion almost twice the size of the surplus in [...]

China's Trade Surplus Continues to Climb

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070709d.jpg" width="353">
Germany&#39;s trade balance increased by 1.72 billion euros in May from April. Although exports declined by 0.56 billion euros, imports declined even more--2.28 billion euros. Exports reached a peak of 80.79 billion euros in October 2006. Since then, they have tended to fluctuate narrowly around a slightly lower level. Imports show a similar pattern, as can be seen in the first chart.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/070709c.jpg" width="353">
Much of Germany&#39;s trade is with its European neighbors, and of its neighbors, countries in the Euro Area are Germany&#39;s major trading partners. In 2006, German exports to the Euro Area accounted for 43% of total exports and imports from the Euro Area were 39% of total imports.Trading among these countries is unaffected by changes in the value of the euro.
The rise in the euro has, no doubt, dampened the demand for German exports in countries outside the Euro Area. As can be seen in the second chart, exports to the non Euro Area fell sharply last fall. Since then, exports to the Non Euro Area of Europe have recovered more quickly than those to Asia and the United States. Data on trade by county are only available through April.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">GERMANY:&nbsp; TRADE IN GOODS ( Bil. Euros)</th>
<th scope="col">May 07</th>
<th scope="col">Apr&nbsp; 07&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Mar 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Feb 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">Jan 06&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
<th scope="col">2004</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Exports</td>
<td>79.27</td>
<td>79.83</td>
<td>79.08</td>
<td>80.27</td>
<td>78.83</td>
<td>893.85</td>
<td>783.73</td>
<td>726.66</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Imports</td>
<td>61.71</td>
<td>63.99</td>
<td>63.48</td>
<td>65.60</td>
<td>63.03</td>
<td>731.61</td>
<td>625.91</td>
<td>572.67</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Balance</td>
<td>15.56</td>
<td>15.84</td>
<td>15.60</td>
<td>14.67</td>
<td>15.80</td>
<td>162.24</td>
<td>157.82</td>
<td>153.99</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol"> Export by Area </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Euro Area</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>34.61</td>
<td>34.61</td>
<td>34.83</td>
<td>34.27</td>
<td>660.47</td>
<td>580.01</td>
<td>538.73</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Non Euro Area Europe</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>26.05</td>
<td>25.17</td>
<td>25.44</td>
<td>25.17</td>
<td>280.36</td>
<td>238.40</td>
<td>220.06</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Asia</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>9.32</td>
<td>8.94</td>
<td>9.42</td>
<td>9.00</td>
<td>107.07</td>
<td>90.10</td>
<td>84.22</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">United States</td>
<td>--</td>
<td>5.97</td>
<td>5.84</td>
<td>6.37</td>
<td>6.06</td>
<td>78.05</td>
<td>68.85</td>
<td>64.13</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

Germany's trade balance increased by 1.72 billion euros in May from April. Although exports declined by 0.56 billion euros, imports declined even more--2.28 billion euros. Exports reached a peak of 80.79 billion euros in October 2006. [...]

Germany's Trade Balance Improves in May: Exports to Asia and the U.S. Still below Peak Levels

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

US financial market concerns shifting from growth to inflation

Economic activity is picking up in the US but remains lackluster abroad

Policy uncertainty has surged since the US national elections.

Recent turnaround in US economic surprises leading to increases in rate-cut expectations

The outlook has brightened in the US, while it has dimmed for other major economies

Headline US PCE inflation elevated by sticky services prices

US and global equity prices have recently diverged

US leading global upturn in economic surprises

Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary easing apart from Japan

Recent rise in global supply chain pressures could augur a pickup in global inflation pressures

Underperforming German economy generating increased policy uncertainty relative to Europe and the US

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250502A5.jpg

250502B5.jpg

Nonfarm payrolls increased 177,000 (1.2% y/y) during April after rising 185,000 in March, revised from 228,000, and 102,000 in February, revised from 117,000. Expectations had been for a 130,000 rise in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The latest figure left the three-month average change at 155,000 in April, down from 232,000 in January.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.2% during April after unrevised increases of 0.3% in March and 0.2% in February. Earnings growth of 3.8% y/y was below the 5.9% high in March 2022.

The unemployment rate, measured in the household survey, held m/m at an expected 4.2% in April, and compared to 4.1% in February and 4.0% in January. It reached a low of 3.4% in April 2023. The unemployment rate, including employees working part-time for economic reasons plus all marginally-attached workers, eased to 7.8% in April from 7.9% in March.

In the **establishment survey**, private-sector employment rose 167,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 170,000 March increase. Factory sector jobs edged 1,000 lower (-0.7% y/y) following a 3,000 gain. Construction sector employment increased 11,000 (1.7% y/y), after rising 7,000 in March.

Private service-producing sector employment increased 156,000 (1.4% y/y) in April after improving 161,000 in March. Increases varied greatly amongst service sector categories. Private education & health sector employment rose 70,000 (3.4% y/y) last month following a 74,000 March increase. Leisure & hospitality employment rose 24,000 (1.3% y/y) after a 38,000 gain. Trade, transportation & utilities rose 32,000 (0.9% y/y) in April following a 25,000 March increase. Professional & business services employment rose 17,000 (-0.1% y/y) following a 3,000 rise while temporary help employment rose 3,600 (-3.9% y/y) following a 2,700 decline. Financial activities employment improved 14,000 (1.2% y/y) after a 6,000 gain. The number of information sector jobs held steady (-0.4% y/y) last month after falling 2,000 in March.

Government sector payrolls rose 10,000 (1.3% y/y) last month after increasing 15,000 in March. The number of local government jobs increased 13,000 (1.4% y/y) following a 17,000 gain. State government employment rose 6,000 (1.8% y/y) following a 2,000 March increase but federal government payrolls fell 9,000 (-0.3% y/y), the third consecutive monthly decline.

Private-sector average hourly earnings rose 0.2% (3.8% y/y) in April after increasing 0.3% in March. Earnings in the goods-producing sector eased 0.1% (+4.0% y/y) following a 0.6% gain. Earnings in construction rose 0.3% (3.6% y/y), after a 0.2% rise but factory sector earnings declined 0.3% (+4.3% y/y) after surging 0.8% in March. In the private services-sector, earnings rose 0.2% (3.7% y/y) in April for the third straight month. Information sector pay increased 1.0% (5.2% y/y) last month after easing 0.1%, and financial activities earnings rose 0.5% (4.3% y/y) for the second straight month. Trade, transportation & utilities sector pay increased 0.4% (3.4% y/y) after 0.6%. Professional & business sector earnings increased 0.1% (4.4% y/y) after 0.2% in March. Leisure & hospitality earnings held steady (+3.8% y/y) following a 0.6% March increase.

250502C5.jpg

250502D5.jpg

The length of the average workweek held steady at 34.3 hours in April. The workweek in the goods-producing sector eased to 39.8 hours from 40.0 hours. The construction sector average workweek eased to 39.0 hours from 39.3 hours while the factory sector workweek moved lower to 40.0 hours from 40.2. The average workweek in the private service sector held at 33.2 hours. Professional & business service hours fell to 36.3 hours from 36.4 while trade, transportation & utilities hours improved to 34.3 from 34.0 hours. Private education hours rose slightly to 32.8, but leisure & hospitality held steady at 25.5 hours.

In the **household survey**, the unemployment rate held at 4.2% in April as employment rose 436,000 and the size of the labor force increased 518,000. The labor force participation rate edged up to 62.6% last month from 62.5% in March. It remained below the high of 63.3% early in 2020. The rate for teenagers declined to 36.9%. For workers aged 20-24, the rate held steady at 72.1%, up from 71.8% six months earlier. For workers aged 25-54 the rate rose to 83.6%, a five-month high. For individuals 55 and over, the rate improved to 38.4% in April.

The employment/population ratio for all workers in April rose to 60.0%. It remained below the peak reading of 61.1% in February, 2020 just prior to the pandemic.

The employment and earnings data are collected from surveys taken each month during the week containing the 12th day of the month. The labor market data are contained in Haver's **USECON** database. Detailed figures are in the **EMPL** and **LABOR** databases. The expectations figures are in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250502X5.jpg

250502F5.jpg

- Job growth spreads across most sectors.
- Earnings growth trend decelerates.
- Jobless rate holds steady.

U.S. Job Growth Is Firm in April but March Gain Is Lessened

Winnie Tapasanun

250502F32.jpg

250502G32.jpg

Total factory orders rose a slightly less-than-expected 4.3% m/m in March after rises of 0.5% in February and 1.8% in January, data from the U.S. Census Bureau showed. A 4.5% m/m March increase had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. The March reading was the third successive monthly rise and the largest since July 2024. The year-on-year rate accelerated to 6.0% in March, the highest since November 2022, from 2.3% in February. Notably, orders for nondefense aircraft & parts soared 139.0% in March following a 7.4% drop in February and a 92.9% surge in January. Factory orders excluding defense rose 4.8% (5.9% y/y), the largest of three straight m/m/ rises, after a 0.4% February increase. Factory orders excluding the transportation sector fell 0.2% (+1.1% y/y), the first m/m fall since August, after rising 0.3% in February, January and December.

Durable goods orders jumped 9.2% (11.9% y/y) in March, the third consecutive m/m gain and the biggest since July 2024, on top of a 0.8% increase in February (matching +9.2% m/m in the advance report on April 24). The March jump reflected m/m orders increases of 27.1% (the largest m/m surge since July 2024; 31.2% y/y) in transportation equipment, 1.1% (4.9% y/y) in primary metals, 0.5% (-0.4% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.1% (2.5% y/y) in fabricated metal products, and 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in machinery. To the downside, durable goods orders for computers & electronic products (-1.3%; +2.7% y/y) and electrical equipment, appliances & components (-1.0%; +4.2% y/y) declined m/m in March.

Nondurable goods orders, which equal nondurable goods shipments, fell 0.3% (+0.4% y/y) in March, the first m/m fall since September, after a 0.1% uptick in February. The March fall reflected m/m drops of 2.4% (-9.3% y/y) in petroleum & coal products and 0.9% (-1.2% y/y) in apparel. To the upside, the following nondurable goods shipments rose m/m in March: leather & allied products (1.5%; 8.6% y/y), beverage & tobacco products (0.7%; 5.8% y/y), paper products (0.6%; 2.3% y/y), printing (0.3%; 3.8% y/y), textile mills (0.3%; 0.8% y/y), chemical products (0.2%; 5.4% y/y), plastics & rubber products (0.2%; 0.4% y/y), food products (0.1%; 1.8% y/y), and textile products (0.1%; 2.1% y/y).

Total shipments slipped 0.1% (+2.0% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since October, after a 0.7% increase in February. Excluding transportation, shipments were virtually unchanged m/m (+1.1% y/y) in March following six straight m/m gains. Shipments of durable goods industries inched up 0.1% (3.8% y/y) in March, the smallest of four consecutive m/m increases, after a 1.3% advance in February. This reflected m/m durable goods shipments rises of 1.2% (5.6% y/y) in primary metals, 0.9% (0.1% y/y) in furniture & related products, 0.8% (-0.2% y/y) in nonmetallic mineral products, 0.4% (0.0% y/y) in machinery, 0.3% (1.8% y/y) in fabricated metal products, 0.2% (4.5% y/y) in computers & electronic products, 0.2% (-2.1% y/y) in wood products, and 0.1% (3.0% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components. In contrast, durable goods shipments for transportation equipment (-0.5%; +7.3% y/y) and miscellaneous durable goods (-0.1%; +2.9% y/y) fell m/m in March following three successive m/m increases.

Unfilled orders rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, up for the eighth month in nine, after a 0.1% uptick in February. Excluding transportation, unfilled orders dipped 0.1% (+0.7% y/y) in March, the first m/m easing since May 2024, after holding steady in February. Backlogs of durable goods rose 2.0% (2.3% y/y) in March, reflecting m/m rises of 3.1% (3.1% y/y) in transportation equipment and 0.2% (2.4% y/y) in electrical equipment, appliances & components.

Inventories edged up 0.1% (0.9% y/y) in March, the fifth straight m/m increase, after rising at the same pace in the prior two months. Excluding transportation, inventories were up 0.1% (0.5% y/y) in March, the fifth consecutive m/m rise. Durable goods inventories ticked up 0.1% (1.0% y/y) in March after holding steady in February and January; nondurable goods inventories edged up 0.1% (0.8% y/y), the fifth successive m/m increase.

The factory sector data are available in Haver’s **USECON** database. The Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250502H32.jpg

250502I32.jpg

- March manufacturers’ new orders +4.3% m/m; +6.0% y/y, highest since Nov. ’22.
- Durable goods orders (+9.2%) jump m/m, while nondurable goods orders (-0.3%) and shipments (-0.1%) decline m/m.
- Transportation equipt. orders +27.1% m/m, w/ a 139.0% m/m surge in nondefense aircraft & parts orders.
- Unfilled orders +2.0%, the eighth m/m rise in nine months.
- Inventories +0.1%, the fifth consecutive m/m increase.

U.S. Factory Orders Increase for the Third Straight Month in March

Robert Brusca

250502E.jpg

The global manufacturing data showed broad weakening in April as conditions weakened across more than half of the contributing early reporters in the S&P survey of manufacturing. Of the 18 early reporting countries, more than half of them showed deceleration over six months and 12 months. Over three months, only 8 of 18 showed deterioration and that's about as good as it got in this report. In the current month, month-to-month changes showed more than half of the survey contributors showing weaker results than the month before. In the S&P framework, manufacturing improved month-to-month for the U.S.; however, looking at sequential averages for the U.S., U.K., European monetary union, Canada, and Japan, we see a steady weakening and results over 12 months, over six months versus 12 months, and for three months versus 6 months. The highly developed countries are not doing particularly well.

Asian economies are also showing slight deterioration but doing a little better than the developed countries in general.

Only five of the 18 reporting countries have queue percentile standings in their data back to January 2021 that are above their medians. Readings at or above the 50% mark are at or above the median standing. Canada is showing the weakest manufacturing result on record over this span, in terms of its queue percentile standing which is at 0 in the current month.

I showed the graphic for the Baltic dry goods index in this report rather than statistics on the manufacturing PMI data because the Baltic data, which reflect shipping volume for dry goods - that is excluding things like oil - is weak but it's only in the neighborhood where it's been for some time. There has been a great deal of talk about how tariffs may have impacted trade flows, expected trade flows, shipping, shipping rates, and the like. However, according to the Baltic dry goods index, there isn't much evidence that this is occurring right now and affecting the current data. That may still lie ahead but for now it's not baked in the cake.

250502.jpg

Globally Manufacturing Weakens

Andrew Cates

**China-US shipping activity** 
The economic fallout from escalating US-China trade tensions is becoming increasingly visible in the data. A clear example is the chart below, which highlights a sharp drop in vessel arrivals at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, along with a notable decline in ships waiting offshore. These trends point to a tangible weakening in bilateral trade flows, as the effects of tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by both countries begin to bite. Given the outsized role the US and China play in global commerce, this slowdown is likely to reverberate through global supply chains, weighing on trade volumes, dampening demand, and curbing economic growth worldwide.

250501Z1.jpg

**GDP growth in Q1**
Data this week showed that the US economy contracted, albeit modestly, in Q1 even as the euro area recorded a modest expansion—an unusual divergence. The contraction in US GDP can be largely attributed to a sharp increase in imports, as firms rushed to front-load purchases ahead of anticipated tariff hikes. In addition, domestic demand was subdued, with weaker contributions from both consumer spending and government consumption. This decoupling between the US and euro area economies is particularly striking given the current global focus on the US dollar. While the euro area has shown unexpected signs of resilience, the US downturn raises important questions about its underlying momentum, especially as trade dynamics and policy uncertainty continue to cloud the outlook.

250501Z2.jpg

**The US dollar versus yield differentials**
Chart 3 below illustrates a sharp breakdown in the correlation between the US-Germany 10-year yield differential and the EUR/USD exchange rate. Historically, the dollar has moved closely with interest rate spreads, as yield-seeking capital flowed into US assets. But since early 2025—and more acutely following the April tariff actions—the dollar has weakened markedly even as the yield spread has narrowed only modestly. This decoupling underscores a critical shift: capital markets are reacting not just to monetary policy, but to rising trade and geopolitical uncertainty. In other words, the exchange rate is now being driven as much by risk sentiment as by interest rate arbitrage.

250501Z3.jpg

**The US economy’s structural outperformance and the dollar**
A second dynamic, captured in the next chart, reveals a tight correlation between the US real effective exchange rate and the potential GDP growth differential between the US and euro area over the past 50-60 years. This raises the question: has dollar strength (until recently) merely been a reflection of US growth leadership—or are capital inflows themselves helping to sustain this growth outperformance? In effect, the tail may be wagging the dog. Global investors have long allocated capital to the US, attracted by its macroeconomic resilience, technological leadership, and deep, liquid financial markets. The danger now is that the US trade war may disrupt this equilibrium. A sharp or sustained reduction in capital inflows could undermine growth, weaken the dollar, and trigger broader financial instability. Moreover, reversing this dynamic is not straightforward—barring a credible structural resurgence in European (or Asian) growth, the global investment landscape remains tilted toward the US.

250501Z4.jpg

**US competitiveness versus Europe, China and Japan** 
The next chart below examines relative unit labour costs across major economies since 2011. The US and China have seen a broadly similar trajectory, with steady increases in relative cost structures, while the euro area has remained flat and Japan has seen dramatic improvement. This suggests that, from a cost competitiveness standpoint, the US is not uniquely disadvantaged vis-à-vis China. However, as we discuss further below, this parallel erosion of cost competitiveness is occurring at much higher nominal wage levels in the US, which blunts its ability to regain export share through tariff-related shifts alone. The trade war strategy—absent a corresponding improvement in productivity or structural reforms—risks imposing costs without delivering material competitiveness gains.

250501Z5.jpg

**Average wages in selected developed and developing economies**
This point is reinforced by the final chart, which shows estimates for average monthly wages across countries in 2024. US labour remains much more expensive than in peer or emerging economies. So even if China’s costs rise in tandem with the US, the global supply chain has ample alternatives. 'China plus one' strategies are accelerating, and the US remains structurally misaligned with low-cost production hubs. Tariffs aimed at reshoring supply chains are unlikely to deliver sustained gains unless accompanied by deep supply-side reforms, and risk further disincentivizing foreign direct investment if global firms perceive US trade policy as erratic or punitive.

250501Z6.jpg

Financial markets found a measure of calm this week, buoyed by some subtle shifts in tone from US policymakers. A softening in the administration’s rhetoric around trade tariffs coupled with a less confrontational stance toward Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, helped ease tensions that had roiled markets earlier in the month. Equities rebounded modestly, and volatility indicators edged lower, reflecting cautious optimism that the worst of the policy shocks may be behind us. But beneath the surface, significant downside risks persist. New shipping data point to a pronounced slowdown in US-China trade flows (chart 1), suggesting the damage from recent tariff escalations is already rippling through global supply chains. Meanwhile, incoming data for the US revealed an unexpected contraction in the economy in Q1 and further signs of weakness in the labour market (chart 2). The US dollar, in the meantime, while long supported by superior growth and yield differentials, has begun to decouple from traditional drivers (charts 3 and 4) suggesting growing pressure on capital flows. At the same time, structural imbalances are drawing renewed scrutiny: unit labour cost comparisons show the US steadily losing competitiveness (chart 5), while nominal wage disparities remain stark versus China and other Asian economies, further complicating any effort to restore trade balance without broader reforms (chart 6). In short, while markets may be drawing temporary comfort from a pause in tariff brinkmanship, the deeper economic and financial vulnerabilities exposed this month remain unresolved—and increasingly central to the global macro narrative.

<iframe style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/3PzXXKrkHcwtOLipohEdnB?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="152" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe>

Charts of the Week: Tariff Truce, Tenuous Trust

250501F20.jpg

250501G20.jpg

U.S. light vehicle sales dropped 2.9% (+6.5% y/y) to 17.31 million units (SAAR) in April after surging 10.8% to 17.82 million units in March. The retreat in April vehicle sales accompanied a 1.7% y/y rise in real disposable income through March, which compared to 2.0% growth last year.

Sales declines were broad-based last month. Light truck sales fell 1.3% (+9.9% y/y) during April to 14.34 million units (SAAR), after rising 12.4% in March. Purchases of domestically-made light trucks declined 1.2% (+11.9% y/y) to 11.02 million units, after jumping 12.5% in March. Sales of imported light trucks fell 1.8% (+4.4% y/y) to 3.32 million units, following an 11.6% March surge.

Trucks’ record 82.8% share of the light vehicle market last month compared to 81.5% in March and 80.3% in April of last year. The share averaged 80.3% during all of 2024 versus 53.3% ten years earlier.

Auto sales also declined last month, down 9.5% (-7.5%) to 2.97 million units (SAAR) following a 3.5% March rise. The decline reversed all of the increase over the prior two months. Purchases of domestically-produced cars fell 9.8% (-4.3% y/y) last month to 2.22 million units, after rising 3.8% in March. Sales of imported autos declined 9.6% (-15.7% y/y) to 0.75 million units, following a 2.5% March increase.

Imports' 23.5% share of the U.S. light vehicle market was little changed from 23.6% in March and compared to a May 2023 low of 22.9% and a high of 26.3% in November of 2023. Imports' share of the passenger car market held steady at 25.3% last month and compared to 27.7% in April of last year. It reached a high of 38.7% in September 2021. Imports' share of the light truck market eased to 23.2% last month after falling to 23.3% in March.

U.S. vehicle sales figures can be found in Haver's **USECON** database. Additional detail by manufacturer is in the I**NDUSTRY** database.

250501H20.jpg

250501I20.jpg

- Light truck sales pull back, while auto sales tumble.
- Both domestic and imported sales decline.
- Imports' market share slips further.

Economy in Brief: July 2007

Jump to:

U.S. Import Prices Jumped Again in June

U.S. Budget Reverses May Shortfall

U.S. June Retail Sales Fell After Huge Gain in May

U.S. June Retail Sales Fell After Huge Gain in May

India's Industrial Production Up "Only" 11.1% in May

CPI in Hungary and Czech Republic: Up, Down or Sideways?

China's Trade Surplus Continues to Climb

Germany's Trade Balance Improves in May: Exports to Asia and the U.S. Still below Peak Levels