Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. 2002 Trade Deficit Reaches $435.2B
Excite News ^ | 2.20.03

Posted on 02/20/2003 9:31:20 AM PST by Enemy Of The State

 

U.S. 2002 Trade Deficit Reaches $435.2B
 
Feb 20, 11:04 AM (ET)

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

(AP) The chart tracks the Leading Economic Indicators for the past year. (AP Graphic)
Full Image

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States recorded a $435.2 billion trade deficit for 2002, the largest imbalance in history, as the weak global economy set back American exports while imports of autos and other consumer goods were hitting all-time highs.

In other economic news, the Labor Department reported Thursday that inflation at the wholesale level shot up by 1.6 percent in January, the biggest increase in 13 years, led by a sharp 4.8 percent rise in energy costs.

Even though the surge was concentrated in energy, prices of other items such as new cars showed big advances as well and the overall increase was certain to raise concerns about whether inflation, which has been well-behaved for years, was threatening to get out of control. The government will report on January consumer prices on Friday.

In a third report, the government said that the number of newly laid off workers filing unemployment claims jumped to a seven-week high of 402,000 last week, up by 21,000 from the previous week, showing that the labor market is still struggling with an uneven economic recovery.

 

The trade report showed that even in agricultural products, normally a U.S. bulwark, Americans bought more imported wine, cheese and other foods than American farmers were able to sell abroad - resulting in only the second U.S. trade deficit in farm goods on record.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the deficit for all of last year was up 21.5 percent from the $358.3 billion trade gap recorded in 2001 and surpassed the old record deficit of $378.7 billion set in 2000.

By country, the United States ran up the largest trade gap with China, a deficit of $103.1 billion, marking the third straight year that the United States has recorded its largest trade deficit with that nation. It pushed the former front-runner in this category, Japan, into second place.

In addition to the record for all of 2002, the United States set a new monthly high of $44.2 billion in December, up 10.5 percent from the previous record set in November of $40.0 billion.

Opponents of President Bush's trade policies contend that the huge trade deficits represent the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs as U.S. companies have been battered by what the critics say is unfair competition from low-wage countries that stifle labor rights and have lax environmental protections.

 

(AP) The nation's unemployment rate unexpectedly dropped to 5.7 percent in January as businesses added...
Full Image
However, the administration contends that it is pursuing the correct procedure in trying to cut global trade deals that will lower high barriers in other countries in a way that boosts American exports.

American manufacturing companies have been lobbying for the Bush administration to drop its support for a strong dollar policy, arguing that an overpriced dollar has made their goods noncompetitive in foreign markets while opening them to a flood of competition from cheaper priced imports.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, who was meeting with British finance officials on Thursday on his way to a weekend meeting in Paris of America's major economic allies, insisted during his Senate confirmation hearing that the administration intends to make no change in its strong dollar policy. A strong U.S. dollar makes investments in U.S. stocks and bonds more attractive to foreigners.

For 2002, exports of goods and services fell 2.5 percent to $973 billion, marking the second consecutive annual decline, as American exporters found it increasingly difficult to sell overseas. This reflected a spreading global economic slowdown and the strong dollar.

American manufacturers were the hardest hit sector of the economy during the 2001 recession with a loss of nearly 2 million workers. While the economy began a recovery in 2002, the progress has been uneven and so far it has not resulted in a rebound in hiring.

American imports, which fell 6 percent in 2001, reflecting the U.S. recession, staged a rebound in 2002, rising by 3.8 percent to $1.41 trillion. That, however, was still below the all-time high of $1.44 trillion set in 2000.

But in individual categories, imports of autos and auto parts set a record high $203.9 billion and imports of other consumer goods, a category that includes everything from clothes to televisions and toys, also hit a record high of $307.7 billion last year.

Imports of oil totaled $103.6 billion last year, basically unchanged from the level in 2001.

After China, deficits with other countries included imbalances of $$70.1 billion with Japan; $49.8 billion with Canada and $37.2 billion with Mexico.

On the export side, manufactured goods suffered a setback but sales of American farm products managed to eke out a tiny 0.3 percent increase to $49.54 billion last year over the 2001 level.

However, imports of farm products rose a much faster 6.6 percent to $49.72 billion, representing in a deficit in farm trade of $176 million, the second such deficit in history. Farm imports topped exports in 1986 as well.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: globalism; recession; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last
To: sixmil
You're thinking is one dimensional. There is such a thing as trade balance, where you have an equal amount of imports and exports. This would be the ideal place to be, not a net importer and not a net exporter.

I noticed you didn't answer my question. Saying a trade balance is best shows how little you understand of economics.

So, where is the list of countries with big trade surpluses and how great are their economies? Japan, Germany? Excuse me while I laugh.

81 posted on 02/24/2003 9:01:58 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
So, where is the list of countries with big trade surpluses and how great are their economies? Japan, Germany? Excuse me while I laugh.
I don't want a trade surplus, that's why I said balanced trade. No surplus, no deficit, get it? I don't want to be a stagnant export economy like Japan, and I don't want to be an import dependent nation like we are currently becoming. I want the benefits of trade without the downside, that's all.

82 posted on 02/24/2003 9:07:16 PM PST by sixmil (down with open-borders-tariff-free traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
I don't want a trade surplus, that's why I said balanced trade.

Well, if you don't want it, that must be best for the economy.

The point of this thread was the big trade deficit with China. You know what a trade deficit is, right? We send China little green pieces of paper and they send us computers, CD's, DVD's etc.

Willie is worried that they'll keep our little pieces of green paper and never give them back. If they want to do that, we've got plenty of paper.

If they use that paper to buy stuff from us, you and Willie are happy and American jobs are created. If they use that paper to buy t-bills, they reduce American interest rates which helps the economy and creates American jobs and reduces interest the govt pays to finance the federal deficit.

So, either way, I don't see a problem

Enlighten me, show me the problem.

83 posted on 02/24/2003 9:19:40 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
I don't want to be a stagnant export economy like Japan,

Aha, so it is possible to have a trade surplus and still have a bad economy. Quick, tell Willie. There must be a Jefferson quote that applies.

84 posted on 02/24/2003 9:20:58 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The point of this thread was the big trade deficit with China. You know what a trade deficit is, right? We send China little green pieces of paper and they send us computers, CD's, DVD's etc.
So you plan on not honoring those greenbacks for all debts public and private?
Willie is worried that they'll keep our little pieces of green paper and never give them back. If they want to do that, we've got plenty of paper.
Nope.
If they use that paper to buy stuff from us, you and Willie are happy and American jobs are created. If they use that paper to buy t-bills, they reduce American interest rates which helps the economy and creates American jobs and reduces interest the govt pays to finance the federal deficit.
I don't care what they do with the money, I just think we should give them less of it. You however, must be very worried about what they do and don't do since that is part and parcel with your version of free trade.
So, either way, I don't see a problem

Enlighten me, show me the problem.

The problem is that you are investing in everybody else's manufacturing sector. The income gap is growing. Real wages are not growing. People are losing good paying jobs. Mothers have to work instead of staying home raising their kids. You are making a communist country wealthy. You are making us dependent on the rest of the world.

85 posted on 02/24/2003 9:27:10 PM PST by sixmil (down with open-borders-tariff-free traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
So you plan on not honoring those greenbacks for all debts public and private?

Sure, I'll honor the pieces of paper, all they have to do is buy stuff. If they prefer paper, I guess they could eat it.

The income gap is growing.

Income gap, you sound like Clinton.

Real wages are not growing. People are losing good paying jobs. Mothers have to work instead of staying home raising their kids.

Mothers have to work because the goverment takes half our money, not because China gives us cool stuff for green paper.

You are making a communist country wealthy. You are making us dependent on the rest of the world.

Yeah, China is so wealthy that Americans risk their lives to get smuggled into China everyday, oh wait, Chinese get smuggled here. Nevermind.

86 posted on 02/24/2003 9:55:49 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Mothers have to work because the goverment takes half our money, not because China gives us cool stuff for green paper.

Yeah, China is so wealthy that Americans risk their lives to get smuggled into China everyday, oh wait, Chinese get smuggled here. Nevermind.

And why is it that gov't takes half our money? Because they no longer collect tariffs. You do realize that the gov't used to fund itself almost entirely through tariffs. Tax-cut Republicans like you have a single solution for all that ails us, tax cuts. Find a tax and cut it, problem solved. And it's a perpetual power source too since Dems will raise taxes, and then you get to go cut them again. Is it ever necessary to accomplish anything tangeable or is does the rhetoric justify itself? You need to learn to read more carefully. I said we are making the Chinese wealthy, not the Chinese are wealthy.

87 posted on 02/25/2003 8:03:20 AM PST by sixmil (down with open-borders-tariff-free traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
And why is it that gov't takes half our money? Because they no longer collect tariffs.

Yeah, if only we lived in the 1800's and the government was funded only thru tariffs.

Tax cuts aren't the solution for everything, but neither is the government. If we ever cut government to where it should be (much less than 20% of GDP) then maybe we could fund it with tariffs alone. I'd be willing to cut income taxes to zero and try that.

Yes, we're making the Chinese wealthy,

The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US. At this rate of growth, by 2024 they'll be up to $17,200 per capita.

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300.

They still have a long way to go.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html

88 posted on 02/25/2003 8:21:18 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Southack
3.6% of our annual GDP is lost in our annual trade deficit. OK, but how much did our economy grow in that same year? 4.7%.

Not sure where you get your data from but, economagic.com has '02 GDP at about $9.5T and yoy growth at 2.75%

If my math is correct that would put the $435B trade deficit at approx. 4.6% of GDP.

89 posted on 02/25/2003 8:22:42 AM PST by getsoutalive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Yeah, if only we lived in the 1800's and the government was funded only thru tariffs.
Are you suggesting that the system did not work then, or that it won't work now?
Tax cuts aren't the solution for everything, but neither is the government.
So tariffs are big government, but trade deals are not?
The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US. At this rate of growth, by 2024 they'll be up to $17,200 per capita.
Sounds like you are suggesting that China is not a threat until they are equal to us in per capita GNP. Did you make the same argument with respect to the Soviets during the cold war?

90 posted on 02/25/2003 9:11:45 AM PST by sixmil (down with open-borders-tariff-free traitors)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sixmil
Are you suggesting that the system did not work then, or that it won't work now?

I suggested no such thing. You get government spending down to 10% of GDP and I'll support tariffs to finance the spending. As long as income tax is eliminated.

Tax cuts aren't the solution for everything, but neither is the government.

So tariffs are big government, but trade deals are not?

Tariffs which raise costs to consumers and give the government more money would be big government, yes.

The result has been a quadrupling of GDP since 1978. In 2001, with its 1.27 billion people but a GDP of just $4,300 per capita, China stood as the second largest economy in the world after the US. At this rate of growth, by 2024 they'll be up to $17,200 per capita.

Sounds like you are suggesting that China is not a threat until they are equal to us in per capita GNP. Did you make the same argument with respect to the Soviets during the cold war?

I was never worried about the GDP of the Soviets. I'm worried about the Chinese, sure, but because they're aggressive and expansionist. Their military will be a problem, eventually. No argument there.

91 posted on 02/25/2003 9:24:18 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson