U.S. trade in manufactured goods continued to improve in January 2010, according to the Commerce Department’s trade data released today. The seasonally-adjusted manufactured goods trade deficit decreased slightly in January compared to December 2008, and stood at -$28 billion, or an annual rate of -$337 billion. That stands in sharp contrast to the peak manufactured goods deficit of $520 billion in mid-2006.

Seasonally-adjusted January data show that U.S. exports of manufactured goods were $80.3 billion, up 16 percent over January 2009. Manufactured goods imports were $108.3 billion, up 6.5 percent from last January.

America’s manufacturers continue to account for about 60 percent of U.S. exports of goods and services, so the recovery in manufactured goods exports is good news for the economy and for future job prospects. While the recovery is taking place at a rapid pace, manufactured goods exports are still nearly 20 percent below their July 2008 peak.

The rate at which exports are now expanding puts us in good shape to launch the effort the President has called for to double U.S. exports in five years. That translates into an ambitious 15 percent a year growth rate, and achievement of the goal will require far-reaching changes in U.S. trade policy to open foreign markets more rapidly - particularly through an ambitious program for bilateral trade promotion agreements. An ambitious Doha Round, additional steps to bolster U.S. competitiveness, and other major steps will be needed as well.

The results are in, the judges have made their decision, and the results are final.  U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) for the second year in a row have turned in a trade surplus for U.S. manufactured goods.  U.S. manufactured goods exports to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other FTAs exceeded imports by $21 billion in 2008 and extended their surplus to $26 billion in 2009 –- starkly visible in the graph below.

This two-year surplus of nearly $50 billion is pure gold when viewed against the distressing $1.4 trillion dollar deficit for U.S. overall trade in goods and services during that period.  What a great record for U.S. Free Trade Agreements – the brightest spot in the U.S. trade picture!

This reality stands in sharp contrast to what the trade naysayers have been telling Congress, blaming trade agreements as the reason for the trade deficit.  Well, the score is in, the facts are now known, and the deficit is with the countries that DON’T have trade agreements with the United States.

Hopefully winning the “Trade Olympics” gold medal will catch Congress’ attention so they will focus on reality rather than the mythology that has been handed to them for years – and will take up and pass the three pending trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, and Panama.

Thousands of Americans are out of work today rather than being employed by America’s manufacturers who would have expanded sales, production, and employment opportunities if Congress stopped insisting that we should continue to have to pay high tariffs to sell in those countries.

Frank Vargo is NAM’s vice president, international economic affairs.

Great news about the Administration’s new export initiative! The National Association of Manufacturers has long been supportive of a significant effort to boost U.S. exports. Of the 15 major manufacturing nations the United States is dead last in the proportion of production that we export.

So how do we double exports in five years?

The dollar cannot be overvalued. Global currencies should reflect their actual market values.

Modernize export controls. Modernizing the export control system will strengthen national security, focus limited resources on truly sensitive technologies, promote U.S. technological and scientific leadership, and improve economic competitiveness. In addition, modernization creates more than 340,000 new jobs and increases exports by nearly $60 billion over the next 10 years.

Open access to markets. The United States enjoys a manufactured goods trade surplus with countries we have a free trade agreement with. We already have low tariffs, and FTAs work to lower the tariffs of other countries.

Export promotion. Thousands of U.S exporters export to only one or two countries. Adding one or two more to their markets would increase total exports by a third.

We applaud Secretary Locke’s new export initiative and look forward to work with Administration to increase manufacturing exports.

Frank Vargo is NAM’s vice president, international economic affairs.

The U.S. merchandise trade balance improved in October 2009, with the bulk of the gain coming from manufactured goods trade. On the basis of the Commerce Department trade figures released today, the NAM has calculated that seasonally adjusted October trade deficit for manufactured goods was $24.8 billion, compared to $27.6 billion in September.

The $2.7 billion improvement in the manufactured goods balance accounted for 85 percent of the overall gain in the merchandise trade balance. October manufactured goods exports were 2.8 percent higher than in September, while imports fell marginally by 0.8 percent.

Exports were paced by the vital capital goods sector, which accounts for nearly half of U.S. manufactured goods exports. Capital goods exports rose 3.7 percent over September. The fact that 21 of the 32 capital goods categories showed growth indicates that the export recovery is broadening..

Trade fluctuates monthly, so not too much can be inferred from one-month changes. However, the October figures reinforce the recovering trend evident in that exports have risen in four of the last five months. October manufactured goods exports were 14 percent higher than their trough in May 2009. Though it is clear manufactured goods exports are recovering, there is still a long way to go, as October exports were still 20 percent below the July 2008 peak immediately before the collapse in world trade.

The recovering export growth, coupled with slower imports stemming from reduced U.S. consumer demand, have combined to slash the U.S. deficit in manufactured goods nearly in half. The deficit peaked at $46 billion in February 2007, compared to the October 2009 deficit of 24.8 billion.

Manufactured goods trade with free trade partners (NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other free trade agreements) continued to be in surplus in 2009, which through September was at an annual rate of $26 billion - up from the $21 billion surplus in 2008. As we often point out, contrary to the claims of trade critics, the United States has a [manufactured goods*] trade surplus with the countries with which the United States has concluded free trade agreements.

* Editor’s mistake, corrected 8:55 a.m. Friday. In editing copy, I omitted the important qualifier, “manufactured goods.” Thanks to commenter Karl for the catch.

(Frank Vargo, the National Association of Manufacturers’s vice president for international economic affairs, has blogged from Geneva this week at the ministerial meeting of the WTO.  This is his final report.)

Ah well, the strangeness and wonder of the WTO negotiating process continues. Consider, for example, the Chairman’s report at the conclusion of the 7th WTO Ministerial meeting that ended yesterday. (Report available here as .doc.)

The report states, “There was wide support for building on progress made to date. There was also support for not attempting to reopen stabilized texts.” (My emphasis.) This statement refers, among other texts, to the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) text that the U.S. has not accepted. The clear implication from yesterday, though, is that many consider the text to be done, agreed, and not to be revisited.

Stabilized texts? Excuse me, but when the NAMA chairman Luzius Wasescha wrote that text at the end of last year, he stated right in his own text that, “Even though the included text is accepted as a basis for further work, we are far from a consensus among Members.” He also added “Anyhow, everything is conditional in the deepest sense.”

Whoa! By what magic elixir do we move from that December statement to the Ministerial Chairman’s statement yesterday that there is strong support for considering the text wrapped up and immutable? Is this sleight of hand? Or does the WTO have all the collective memory of a computer with a fried hard drive?

Example two: Press reports indicate at the end of the conference European officials lamented, “Doha does not seem to be fully on the agenda of the United States … there is no sign today that the Americans are ready to go forward.” (AFP report.) One said, “They want more concessions for a more acceptable package for the US Congress. Now, the problem is to find a way without damaging what has been achieved so far.”

What hypocrisy! In private, European government officials and business representatives are quite free in admitting their analysis conforms perfectly with the U.S. view - they are getting virtually no new market access out of the proposal so far. But they are willing to accept that, because they believe if they were to press for more industrial market access, the developing countries would turn right around and demand more European concessions in agriculture.

That has the Europeans terrified, for they feel they have given all they possibly can in agriculture. One more grain of wheat will break the European back and result in a revolt that will cause them to pull out of the whole deal. So they would rather build Fortress Europe around their agriculture and forgo market access gains in the rest of the world.

Example three: Indian officials still indicate a reluctance to have India participate in sectorals (but not the same degree of “shut-the-door” resistance I saw last year). But at the same time, India has free trade agreements cooking or under discussion with China, Japan, the European Union and Canada - and when India’s Prime Minister visited Washington recently, he indicated a free trade agreement could be possible with the United States as well. So my question is, who’s left? Why can’t you make cuts in the Doha Round?

The problem isn’t that the United States isn’t showing leadership, for it is. I spoke with Ambassador Ron Kirk a couple of times in Geneva this week. He knows the point to the Doha Round is getting meaningful market opening, and he knows the road to Doha goes through Beijing, New Delhi, and Brasilia. The problem isn’t U.S. leadership. The problem is getting others to get off their defensive agendas and join the United States is a commitment to open markets and grow world trade.

(Frank Vargo, the National Association of Manufacturers’s vice president for international economic affairs, is blogging from Geneva this week at the ministerial meeting of the WTO. )

The WTO 7th Ministerial Meeting opened yesterday afternoon, with Director General Lamy calling for unity (remarks), and minister after minister urging that the Doha Round conclude in 2010. U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the gathering not to confuse process for substance and urged countries to call for a round that would generate greater market access for all. (Kirk’s remarks.) There were some signs of support for this, with some ministers referring to ambition and balance, and some suggesting that we should consider different approaches, since we really hadn’t gotten very far. But despite these welcome signs, there has not been what one could call a rising tide demanding a stronger outcome.

Instead of unity, the gulf between those who want a strong outcome and those who want to hold back became even more obvious. Rather than offering any indications the time had come to begin serious negotiations, Brazil’s Minister Amorim instead chose to come out attacking the United States and re-writing history. Amorim accused the United States of “delaying the conclusion of the round because they want to have some few dollars more in some specific sections.” Wrapping Brazil in the flag of the least developed countries, he said that reducing trade barriers would hurt tariff revenues in the poorest countries and impair their ability to cope with climate change obligations. (Reuters coverage.)

What’s wrong with this picture? Well, first, once again Amorim implied that the least developed countries will have to cut their tariffs, which is untrue. Aside from the advanced developing countries like Brazil that have become global export figures, the developing countries don’t have to do anything in the Round.

Second, Amorim again is seeking to promote his revisionist view of Doha history by stating the United States is asking for new concessions, ignoring the multitude of negotiating sessions over the past eight years in which the United States has consistently said the industrial package had to be viewed as a whole - the tariff cutting formula, sectoral agreements, and exceptions from tariff cuts.

There is nothing new here. The United States has pressed consistently for both industrial and advanced developing countries to cut their barriers, while Brazil has wanted to keep its tariff protection. Amorim expressed horror that the United States thinks the Doha Round is about opening markets.

Third, Amorim stated that under what’s on the table now, Brazil is already committed to cut its applied tariff rates more than the United States, so “it is unreasonable to expect that concluding the round would involve additional unilateral concessions from developing countries.” That’s not so.

WTO data show that the formulas would have the United States cut its applied tariffs in half, while Brazil would cut its applied tariffs only by about 1/8 - from an average of 11 percent to about 9.7 percent. Moreover, Brazil’s tariffs would stay at an average of 11 percent for nine years, and only ten years out would fall to 9.7 percent. And, get this - even then only about 40% of Brazil’s tariffs would take any cut at all. What kind of market access is that?

This is what caused former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Peter Allgeier to once quip that he finally understood what NAMA (Non-Agricultural Market Access) stood for - it meant “No Additional Market Access.”

It is time for Brazil to stop the rhetoric, show the leadership worthy of a major global player, and sit down and negotiate a deal that will have Brazil grant significant new market access and get significant new market access in return - and do this in services as well. You think?

(Frank Vargo, the National Association of Manufacturers’s vice president for international economic affairs, is blogging from Geneva this week at the ministerial meeting of the WTO. This is his first report.)

This afternoon, Monday, November 30, 2009, marks the official start of the 2009 Geneva Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Whether by design or coincidence, the Ministerial starts on the 10th anniversary of the failed Seattle Ministerial, which opened on November 30th, 1999. November 2009 is also the 8th anniversary of the launch of the Doha Round of trade negotiations.

I am in Geneva, and I was at Seattle. There are similarities and differences. The anti-globalization protests at Seattle were vicious, lengthy, and very destructive. So far, the protests in Geneva have been relatively mild, with some destruction, but limited to a small minority of the demonstrators. We’ll see what happens today.

There are also similarities in the status of the negotiations. The Seattle Ministerial failed not because of the demonstrators but because of failure to reach agreement - principally between the United States and Europe over agriculture and sectoral agreements in industrial trade. Agriculture seems, after eight years of negotiation, to be agreed but for a handful (albeit a difficult handful) of issues, but the sectoral trade agreements (eliminating tariffs in major industrial sectors) is still an unresolved issue.

The Ministerial meeting that starts today ostensibly is not for the purpose of negotiating the Doha Round. Instead the official focus is on reviewing the WTO’s activities and its contribution to development. In talking with people, though, it is clear that Doha is the big undercurrent. The hope is that with so many trade ministers gathered in one place, informal discussions can lead to a narrowing of differences among countries that can clear the way for negotiations early next year.

If those differences are not narrowed, it will be extremely difficult to wrap up the Doha Round in 2010, which is the current objective (the first goal was 2005). The differences are still profound. In the key area of manufactured goods, which comprise about 70 percent of world trade in goods and services, the gulf that has been there since the round started is still there: The advanced developing countries are unwilling to provide major cuts in their tariffs and trade barriers.

The NAM applauds today’s announcement that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking to improve how trade policy can bolster the export opportunities of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). As SMEs account for one-third of all U.S. exports, this is a very important step on the part of USTR. The NAM represents thousands of SME exporters and looks forward to working with USTR, Commerce, and other agencies on this very welcome initiative.

SMEs already benefit greatly from U.S. trade policy. For example, SMEs account for 95 percent of all U.S. exporters to NAFTA, and ship an average per company of $630,000 a year to that market – pretty important sales to smaller companies. And SMEs account for 44 percent of U.S. exports to the nations of CAFTA — averaging $440,000 per company.

However, while SMEs benefit strongly from Free Trade Agreements and multilateral tariff-cutting negotiations, some aspects of trade policy bear more heavily on SMEs than large exporters. For example, complex and confusing rules of origin (where a product is produced) and labeling requirements are extremely difficult to comply with for small firms. Different foreign product standards and costly testing and certification requirements can pose insurmountable obstacles for some smaller firms. Focusing new trade policy initiatives on these obstacles in addition to continued market opening could really boost smaller company exports.

USTR’s request that the International Trade Commission examine export obstacles and opportunities is a great next step. Expanded policy attention to the particular export challenges faced by SMEs can pay big dividends, particularly if coupled with expanded export promotion services to get the job done. The NAM thinks that doubling smaller company exports would be a great goal, adding over $300 billion to U.S. exports, and lots of high-paying jobs.

The just-released Government Accountability Office (GAO) in-depth study of the effect of U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) provides official confirmation of what the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has been saying: FTAs work for America. The GAO says that FTAs have largely accomplished the U.S. objectives of achieving better access to markets, strengthening trade rules, and have increased trade. Moreover, the FTAs have resulted in a larger share of foreign markets for many leading agricultural and manufactured goods.

The NAM has been pointing out to all who will listen that, contrary to what anti-trade agreement legislators assume, FTAs have not been responsible for the large U.S. trade deficit. U.S. Census Bureau trade data show that overall manufactured goods trade with NAFTA, CAFTA, and the other U.S. FTAs was never more than about 10 percent of the deficit, and that figure has been shrinking steadily. By 2007 it was 5 percent of the deficit – and last year our manufactured goods trade with FTA partners moved into surplus.

Yes, in 2008, U.S. manufactured goods trade with FTA partners – far from being the cause of our deficit – was in surplus by $21 billion. At the same time, though, our manufactured goods trade with countries that have not agreed to enter into trade agreements with us was in deficit by $477 billion. China accounted for $277 billion of the deficit, and the European Union accounted for nearly $100 billion.

Check the data for yourself. The NAM has started providing the data on our website at http://www.nam.org/TradeData/ManufacturedGoodsTradeData.aspx. The data are updated every month to provide year-to date figures. Through June 2009, the surplus with our FTA partners was twice as large as it was in the first half of 2008!

The graph below says it all: It’s time to dispel the myth that FTAs cause our trade deficit and recognize what the GAO has confirmed – FTAs work for America.

The sharp decline in U.S. exports and imports of manufactured goods appears to be stabilizing, according to the National Association of Manufacturers’ (NAM) analysis of the June trade data released today by the Department of Commerce. (Commerce factsheet)

Manufactured goods exports were $67 billion in June, seasonally adjusted, marking the fourth month in a row of exports being at about $67 billion after falling sharply late last year and early in 2009. Seasonally-adjusted imports were $93 billion, also in line with the average for the past four months.

The manufactured goods balance was stable as well, about at the -$25 billion average deficit for the past four months. That marks a sharp improvement from the roughly -$45 billion peak monthly deficits in 2006, as is apparent in the graph below. The sharp improvement has resulted from exports performing better than imports – in part because of the drop in U.S. demand for automobile and consumer goods imports.

While there is hope the stability in U.S. trade marks the end of the sharp decline in U.S. exports, which are off 25 percent from a year ago, signs of significant growth are not yet apparent. For example, in the critical capital goods sector that normally accounts for half of U.S. manufactured goods exports, only 14 of the 32 product groups showed growth in June.