The monthly deficit in U.S. goods trade with all other countries set a record high in August at more than $83 billion. Daily thread to exchange ideas and to share your thoughts
The market pretty much reversed sentiment from Friday in trading yesterday – and then a bit more – with US stimulus hope helping to keep a risk positive start to the week.
By Justin Low Oct 06, 2020 (Market Insight Reports) —
Selbyville, Delaware. The report Point of Care (PoC) Diagnostics Market Size and Analysis maintains enhanced… /PRNewswire/ — Roots Analysis has announced the addition of the “Microbial Contract Biomanufacturing Market, 2020-2030” report to its list of offerings….
The monthly deficit in U.S. goods trade with all other countries set a record high in August at more than $83 billion.
Trump has blamed the trade deficit on bad trade deals negotiated by his predecessors and unfair trade practices by other countries, but most economists disagree with that explanation.
“We have almost an $800 billion a year trade deficit with other nations,” Trump said in November 2017, after returning from his first trip to Asia as president. “Unacceptable. We are going to start whittling that down and as fast as possible.”
In those 2017 comments, Trump seemed to be referring to just the goods trade deficit while ignoring the surplus the U.S. enjoys in services trade. The combined goods and services deficit in 2017 was $514 billion, reflecting a nearly $800 billion goods deficit as well as a $286 billion services surplus. This year, the goods trade deficit is likely to exceed $850 billion.
The trade deficit measures the difference between what the U.S. imports and exports. The powerful U.S. economy sucks up goods from around the world, resulting in an annual trade deficit that has grown dramatically from a mere $6 billion in 1975.
A variety of factors contributed to Trump’s failure to eliminate the trade gap, which White House trade adviser Peter Navarro predicted in 2016 could be erased in one or two years.
Overall trade remains depressed compared to year-ago levels because of the coronavirus pandemic.
But the massive U.S. government stimulus payments to businesses and consumers have helped U.S. imports recover faster than U.S. exports. That explains why the monthly goods deficit has increased from the average level of $73.3 billion in 2019.
However, even without the pandemic, Trump’s practice of piling tariffs on China and selected other products like steel and aluminum was never going to turn around the deficit, most economists agree.
“Short-term fixes like tariffs don’t work,” said Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and professor of economics at Syracuse University. “It’s magical thinking.”
The large U.S. trade deficit is fundamentally driven by larger economic factors — like the fact Americans spend more than they save and have to borrow from abroad to finance the difference, Lovely said.
Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2017 contributed to that problem by running up the U.S. budget deficit. This year, Congress has approved more than $3 trillion in additional spending to help the U.S. economy recover from the coronavirus pandemic, tripling the budget deficit to $3.3 trillion and pulling the trade deficit along, she said.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, in a statement on Tuesday, defended the administration’s trade actions and attributed this year’s rise in the deficit to the strength of the U.S. recovery from the pandemic and investors buying gold as a hedge against the crisis.
“In spite of the pandemic, our goods deficit is down 2.4 percent year-to-date,” Lighthizer said. “The goods deficit would have decreased by at least 6 percent but for a large spike in gold imports reflecting risk-hedging strategies during the pandemic, not underlying economics.”
He said a 19-percent fall so far this year in the U.S. services surplus due largely to reduced tourism, travel and transport also helped widen the overall deficit. “As other countries recover and reopen, we expect both imports and exports to improve substantially,” Lighthizer said.
Still, although Trump failed to reduce the overall trade deficit, his tariffs helped change the composition of the deficit, which is important, said Michael Stumo, chief executive of the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a Trump-friendly trade group.
Looking at trade in 2019, the last full year of data, the overall U.S. trade deficit fell by less than 1 percent from the previous year to $577 billion. However, the bilateral trade deficit with China fell by a much more impressive 17 percent to $345 billion as importers turned to other countries such as Mexico, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and members of the EU.
Imports also supplied a slightly smaller share of U.S. demand for manufactured goods in 2019 as measured by CPA’s “reshoring index” which fell to 30.6 percent, from 31.2 percent in 2018.
That may seem like a tiny change, but the U.S. consumed about $7.1 trillion worth of manufactured goods in 2019. So even a small increase in the U.S. share of that market can help create thousands of new jobs, Stumo said.
But for Trump to fundamentally reduce the trade deficit, he needed to address misaligned currency rates because the strong dollar makes it hard for U.S. exporters to compete against other suppliers, Stumo said.
On that front, he ran into opposition from Wall Street money houses, who fear any aggressive moves to deal with currency because it hurts their bottom line, he said.
“A huge, excessively high part of our economy is finance and they’ll fight it,” Stumo said. “We’d like finance to be strong, but just not that big a part of our economy. We need a little bit more goods production.”
Trump’s “phase one” trade deal with China does contain a chapter which, for the first time in any trade agreement, contains enforceable rules against currency manipulation. While some trade experts worry that could open the door for renewed U.S. trade actions against China, others see the pact as more of a fig leaf.
“We would say one of the big failures of the Trump administration with respect to trade policy is the failure to address currency misalignment in any kind of meaningful way,” said Thea Lee, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank aligned with union groups. “Putting a couple of sentences into the deal, but without a clear road map as to how it’s going to be instrumentalized, doesn’t really do very much.”
Lee also faults Trump for failing to pass a huge new infrastructure bill to create more jobs in the United States, as he promised during his 2016 campaign, and for approving a set of tax reforms “that took us in exactly the wrong direction by incentivizing and accelerating offshoring.”
Trump’s revised NAFTA agreement with Mexico and Canada does include strong protections for workers rights, which helped the pact win overwhelming approval in the Democratic-controlled House. But the fact that labor concerns were not addressed in the China agreement “just shows that the Trump administration is not driven by any principles in this area, but simply by political expediency,” Lee said.
The administration hails China’s agreement as part of the phase one trade deal to purchase $200 billion more of U.S. goods and services in 2020 and 2021, compared with the record it set in 2017.
But the data released on Tuesday shows that China is well behind on that goal. During the first eight months of this year, it had imported just $69.5 billion worth of U.S. farm and manufactured goods, compared to $80.2 billion in the same period in 2017.
U.S. farmers were hit so hard by Trump’s tariff war with China that his administration doled out more than $20 billion in emergency aid payments to help cushion the blow.
U.S. farm exports to China had reached as high as $25 billion annually a few years before Trump was elected. But they plummeted to $6.8 billion in fiscal 2019 after Beijing retaliated against Trump’s tariffs by raising its own duties on U.S. farm exports.
Now, even with the purchase commitments contained in the phase one trade deal, USDA forecasts farm exports to China in the current fiscal year that began on Oct. 1 at just $18.5 billion. That’s below the $21.8 billion during Trump’s first year in office.
The U.S. agricultural trade surplus, long a point of pride for farmers, has also dwindled under Trump. It is projected this fiscal year at just $4.5 billion, down from $21.1 billion in fiscal 2017.
Even some longtime China hawks fault Trump’s handling of trade.
The president’s decision to take Beijing on by himself, instead of working with allies such as the European Union and Japan, meant that the phase one trade deal failed to address many of the most serious concerns about China’s trade practices, said Mike Wessel, who has served on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review, a watchdog panel created by Congress, since it began in the early 2000s.
“We certainly have to advance U.S. interests, but it’d be a lot better and more productive if we did it together,” Wessel said.
Trump also failed to implement domestic policies that would encourage production of manufactured goods in the United States, instead of other countries, Wessel argued.
“China has an integrated structure to achieve the goals laid out in its ‘Made in China 2025’ plan. It’s a holistic whole of government approach. We don’t have anything comparable,” Wessel said.
Trade ideas thread – European session 6 October 2020
The market pretty much reversed sentiment from Friday in trading yesterday – and then a bit more – with US stimulus hope helping to keep a risk positive start to the week.
But there are still some questions surrounding the situation in Capitol Hill and the focus will turn back towards the election race for the most part in the coming weeks.
The dollar is also reaching a key crossroads once again, this time back towards the lower end with EUR/USD knocking on the door of 1.1800 and GBP/USD at 1.3000.
Adding to that is AUD/USD moving towards 0.7200 once again and all a breach above those levels could see the dollar retrace further its moves from the end of September.
Meanwhile, GBP/JPY managed to break above its 200-day moving average to near a fresh one-month high above 137.00. EUR/JPY is also keeping a bounce off its 100-day moving average at the end of September and looks poised to move towards 125.00 next.
Likewise, gold is also keeping a bounce off its own 100-day moving average at the end of last month as buyers are looking to keep a push above $1,900 following a brief setback yesterday in falling below its 100-hour moving average to $1,887.
US futures are little changed on the day but the push higher in the S&P 500 yesterday above 3,400 sets up a potential test of the 9-16 September highs closer to 3,424 to 3,428 and that will be a key spot to watch in case buyers try to make a play this week.
What are your views on the market right now? Share your thoughts/ideas with the ForexLive community here.
For bank trade ideas, check out eFX Plus
Point of Care (PoC) Diagnostics Market Size, Share Set to Register 34.6 billion USD by 2025 – Industry News
According to a new study the global Point of Care (PoC) diagnostics market is anticipated to reach USD 34.6 billion by 2025.
Request a sample of this premium report at: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/request-a-sample/1700725/?utm_source=marketwatch.com&utm_medium=ADS
Point of Care (PoC) diagnostics, are medical devices or tools that helps to diagnose the disease in patient’s community, usually outside of clinical labs. The point of care allows earlier diagnostics of disease and to improve the health status of patients. The point of care diagnostics can help to save patient’s expenses by early and accurate diagnosis of disease, and by reducing unnecessary travel to clinic.
The point of care diagnostics helps to improve early and correct detection of disease. The point of care diagnostics is composed of approved tests that are carried out near the patient and self-test/at home (over the counter). The point of care diagnostics test requires few seconds for the result and do not require permanent dedicated space in a clinical laboratory. The point of care diagnostics test includes small labs near ICUs at hospitals that perform rapid tests.
Increasing incidences of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, along with rising awareness for early disease diagnosis is expected to drive the growth of point of care diagnostics market are key factors responsible for the growth of point of care diagnostics market globally. Moreover, growing research and development expenditure by top players of the point of care diagnostics market is expected to fuel the growth of the global market. However, high expenditure for product development and stringent regulatory environment may hamper the growth of market.
The global Point of Care (PoC) Diagnostics market is segmented on the basis of product type, mode of prescription, end user, and by region. By product type, the global Point of Care (PoC) diagnostics market is further segmented into cardio metabolic monitoring kits, infectious disease testing kits, glucose monitoring kits, coagulation monitoring kits, pregnancy and fertility testing kits, tumor/cancer markers, urinalysis testing kits, hematology testing kits, cholesterol test strips, drugs-of-abuse testing kits, fecal occult testing kits, and other point of care testing kits. The infectious disease segment by product type in the global point of care diagnostics market is estimated to grow at high pace during the forecast period. The rising prevalence of infectious diseases such as AIDS and HIV globally is expected to propel the growth of segment in the global point of care diagnostics market.
By end user, the global Point of Care (PoC) Diagnostics market is further segmented into professional diagnostics centers, research laboratories home care settings, and others. On the basis of end user, the professional diagnostics segment accounted major share in the global point of care diagnostics market. The professional diagnostics centers segment comprises outpatient healthcare settings, hospitals, and ambulatory care centers. The home care settings segment by end user is estimated to grow at high CAGR during the forecast period. The increasing demand for diagnostics tools are home is expected to propel the growth of global point of care diagnostics test market globally.
The key players operating in global Point of Care (PoC) diagnostics market includes Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Roche Diagnostics, Siemens AG, Beckman Coulter, Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, bioMerieux, Johnson & Johnson, Instrumentation Laboratory, PTS Diagnostics, and Nova Biomedical among others. The increasing investment in research and development activities across the top players is expected to propel the growth of market in the global point of care diagnostics market.
Table of Contents:
1.1. Research goal & scope
2.1. Market Definition
3.1. Point of Care (PoC) Diagnostics- Industry snapshot
4.1. Key findings
5.1. Key findings
6.1. Key findings
7.1. Key findings
More Details on this report: https://www.marketstudyreport.com/reports/point-of-care-poc-diagnostics-market-by-product-type-cardio-metabolic-monitoring-kits-infectious-disease-testing-kits-glucose-monitoring-kits-coagulation-monitoring-kits-pregnancy-fertility-testing-kits-tumor-cancer-markers-urinalysis-testing-kits-hematology-testing-kits-cholesterol-test-strips-drugs-of-abuse-testing-kits-fecal-occult-testing-kits-other-point-of-care-testing-kits-by-mode-of-prescription-otc-testing-kits-prescription-based-testing-kits-by-end-user-outpatient-healthcare-settings-h?utm_source=marketwatch.com&utm_medium=ADS
Market Study Report, LLC. is a hub for market intelligence products and services.
We streamline the purchase of your market research reports and services through a single integrated platform by bringing all the major publishers and their services at one place.
Our customers partner with Market Study Report, LLC. to ease their search and evaluation of market intelligence products and services and in turn focus on their company’s core activities.
If you are looking for research reports on global or regional markets, competitive information, emerging markets and trends or just looking to stay on top of the curve then Market Study Report, LLC. is the platform that can help you in achieving any of these objectives.
Market Study Report LLC
4 North Main Street,
Selbyville, Delaware 19975
US Toll Free: 1-866-764-2150
Email: [email protected]
Is there a problem with this press release? Contact the source provider Comtex at [email protected] You can also contact MarketWatch Customer Service via our Customer Center.
The microbial contract biomanufacturing market is projected to be worth USD 9.3 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 8.7%, claims Roots Analysis
LONDON, Oct. 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — Roots Analysis has announced the addition of the “Microbial Contract Biomanufacturing Market, 2020-2030” report to its list of offerings.
Despite mammalian cell cultures being the preferred manufacturing approach for biologics, recent advances in microbial fermentation have enabled the development of versatile biomanufacturing systems, which are both robust and cost friendly. Presently, a number of service provider companies claim to offer end-to-end solutions, ranging from product development to commercial production, for microbial biologics. Given the obvious advantages of outsourcing, drug developers are likely to continue relying on contract service providers for various aspects of their respective microbial biologic development programs.
To order this 320+ page report, which features 150+ figures and 150+ tables, please visit this link
Key Market Insights
Over 115 CMOs claim to offer manufacturing services for microbial biologics
The microbial contract biomanufacturing market is highly fragmented, featuring a mix of small, mid-sized, large and very large players. It is worth mentioning that more than 50% of CMOs mentioned in the report, have the necessary capabilities to manufacture biologics across all scales of operation (preclinical, clinical and commercial).
Presently, more than 70% of service providers use bacterial expression systems
Recently, a number of microbial biologics manufacturers are shifting to yeast-based production systems. It is also worth highlighting that close to 30% of CMOs, identified in this research, claim to have the required capabilities to manufacture biologics using both bacterial and yeast-based systems.
Europe is currently regarded as a key manufacturing hub for microbial biologics
There are more than 150 manufacturing facilities, with microbial fermentation capabilities, worldwide; of these, 43% are in Europe, followed by North America (31%). On the other hand, prominent regions in the Asia Pacific and Middle East, where microbial biologics are manufactured, include (in decreasing order of number of resident manufacturing facilities) China, India, Japan, Australia and Israel.
Several partnerships were established in this domain, during the period 2016-2020
Majority of the deals recorded in the report, were established in 2019. Further, a large number (~25%) of the partnerships were observed to be focused on the production of microbial biologics; this is followed by process development and manufacturing agreements (20%).
Multiple expansion initiatives have been undertaken by CMOs, since 2016
More than 30% of expansion projects over the last few years were focused on the establishment of new facilities, followed by those involving the expansion of existing manufacturing facilities (28%). Further, 50% of the expansion initiatives mentioned were undertaken by stakeholder companies in Europe, followed North America (39%).
Big pharma players have also been active in this upcoming field
Around 60% of the initiatives undertaken by big pharma were reported in the period 2016-2020. Of these, 57% involved the establishment of strategic partnerships with other industry stakeholders. It is worth highlighting that, in terms of type of biologic, close to 49% of these initiatives were focused on recombinant proteins.
North America and Europe are anticipated to capture over 80% share (in terms of service revenues) of the market, by 2030
At present, more than 60% of the total revenues are generated from commercialized microbial biologics, and this trend is unlikely to change significantly in short to mid-term. Further, it is worth mentioning that the contract biomanufacturing market for microbial biologics in the Middle East and North Africa is anticipated to grow at a relatively faster rate (10.3%), followed by Asia Pacific (9%).
To request a sample copy / brochure of this report, please visit this link
Key Questions Answered
The USD 9.3 billion (by 2030) financial opportunity within the microbial contract biomanufacturing market has been analyzed across the following segments:
The report features inputs from eminent industry stakeholders, according to whom, currently, over 50% operations related to both API and FDF manufacturing of microbial biologics are outsourced to third party service providers. The report includes detailed transcripts of discussions held with the following experts:
The research covers profiles of key players (listed below); each profile features an overview of the company, information related to its microbial manufacturing focused service portfolio, production facilities and capabilities, and an informed future outlook.
For additional details, please visit:
https://www.rootsanalysis.com/reports/microbial-contract-biomanufacturing-market.html or email [email protected]
You may also be interested in the following titles:
+1 (415) 800 3415
+44 (122) 391 1091
SOURCE Roots Analysis
Author: Roots Analysis