Krugman: How Much Should We Worry About A China Shock?

Quite a few people have asked me about China.   My view is the impact of a Chinese slowdown - or even recession - will be minimal on the US.

Note: As always, I recommend reading Michael Pettis' China Financial Markets website. He has been way ahead of the curve on China. (Pettis' site feed sometimes gets hacked - that is the joke at the bottom of Krugman's post today).

Paul Krugman discusses three possible impacts: How Much Should We Worry About A China Shock?

Suppose that those of us now worried that China’s Ponzi bicycle is hitting a brick wall (or, as some readers have suggested, a BRIC wall) are right. How much should the rest of the world worry, and why?

I’d group this under three headings:

1. “Mechanical” linkages via exports, which are surprisingly small.

2. Commodity prices, which could be a bigger deal.

3. Politics and international stability, which involves some serious risks.

So, on the first: this is what many people immediately think of. China’s economy stumbles; China therefore buys less from the rest of the world; and the result is a global slump. Or, maybe not so much.

Some quick, rough, but I think useful math: In 2011, the combined GDP of all the world’s economies not including China was slightly over $60 trillion. Meanwhile, Chinese imports of goods and services were about $2 trillion, or around 3 percent of the rest of the world’s GDP.

Now suppose that China has a slowdown of 5 percent relative to trend. Imports would fall more than this; typical estimates of the “income elasticity” of imports (the percentage change from a 1 percent change in GDP, other things equal) are around 2. So we could be looking at a 10 percent fall in Chinese imports — an adverse shock to the rest of the world of one-tenth of 3 percent,or 0.3 percent of GDP. Not nothing, but not [catastrophic].

There is more in Krugman's post. The mechanical trade impact is the one everyone worries about, and it really isn't a huge concern.  On the second point, the US does sell some commodities to China (Lumber prices started falling when Chinese buying slowed).   However, overall for the US, lower commodity prices is mostly a positive.

The last one - political unrest - is the scary one and is complete unknown.

Two more Q2 GDP Downgrades

From Reuters: Morgan Stanley cuts second quarter U.S. GDP forecast to 0.3 percent

Morgan Stanley economist Ted Wieseman, but the softness in June nonetheless prompted him to cut Morgan Stanley’s Q2 GDP estimate to 0.3 percent from 0.4 percent.

From Merrill Lynch:

This week we are marking to market both our growth and inflation forecasts. On the growth side, the story is simple. With most of the data in, our tracking model pegs 2Q GDP growth at just 0.9%. ... Clearly, the fiscal shock and weak global growth are undercutting the recovery. The main reasons for the downward revision in 2Q are weaker inventory accumulation and a wider trade deficit.

This weakness is not a fluke: it reflects weakness in many key growth indicators. ...

That said, the good news is that we don’t think the weakness will be persistent. The consumer looks healthier heading into 2H, and manufacturing is starting to improve thanks to autos. Low inventories in 2Q give capacity to rebuild in 3Q. Thus, we are revising up 3Q GDP growth to 2.0% from 1.5%, and continue to expect 2.5% in 4Q. We are not out of the woods yet, but conditions are improving.

And Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics last week:

The thing that changed is the GDP number.... That is really coming in much weaker than anyone had expected. Certainly than I had expected earlier in the year. It's tracking slightly positive and it's possible that it could be a negative print in Q2.

This slowdown is probably related to the significant drag from fiscal policy. I expect the fiscal policy drag to diminish and growth to improve going forward.

DOT: Vehicle Miles Driven increased 0.9% in May

The Department of Transportation (DOT) reported:

Travel on all roads and streets changed by +0.9% (2.3 billion vehicle miles) for May 2013 as compared with May 2012. Travel for the month is estimated to be 262.1 billion vehicle miles.

The following graph shows the rolling 12 month total vehicle miles driven.

The rolling 12 month total is still mostly moving sideways.


Click on graph for larger image.

In the early '80s, miles driven (rolling 12 months) stayed below the previous peak for 39 months.

Currently miles driven has been below the previous peak for 66 months - over 5 years - and still counting.

The second graph shows the year-over-year change from the same month in the previous year.

Gasoline prices were down in May compared to May 2012. In May 2013, gasoline averaged of $3.67 per gallon according to the EIA. In 2012, prices in May averaged $3.79 per gallon. However gasoline prices were up year-over-year in June and especially in July of this year, so I expect miles driven to be down year-over-year in July.

Gasoline prices are just part of the story.  The lack of growth in miles driven over the last 5 years is probably also due to the lingering effects of the great recession (high unemployment rate and lack of wage growth), the aging of the overall population (over 55 drivers drive fewer miles) and changing driving habits of young drivers.

With all these factors, it might take several more years before we see a new peak in miles driven. 

Brent and WTI Oil Futures: "The Spread is Dead"

From MarketWatch: WTI crude prices trade at premium to Brent

Prices for West Texas Intermediate crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange traded at a premium versus Brent crude prices on ICE futures Friday.

That was the first time WTI cost more than Brent crude since October 2010 ...

“Assuming our petroleum product consumption and exports remain at recent levels or more, then the spread is dead.” [said Richard Hastings, a macro strategist at Global Hunter Securities]

Click on graph for larger image.

For the last few years there have been some capacity issues at Cushing (see Jim Hamilton's post Prices of gasoline and crude oil for a discussion of the issues).

As Hamilton noted:

[A]n increase in production in Canada and the central U.S. combined with a decrease in U.S. consumption has led to a surplus of oil in the central U.S. This overwhelmed existing infrastructure for cheap transportation of crude from Cushing to the coast, causing a big spread to develop between the prices of WTI and Brent.

The spread has been closing as more infrastructure has been put in place, US demand has increased, and global demand (Brent) has slowed. At one point Brent was selling for about 25% more than WTI (even though they are comparable quality). Right now the "spread is dead".