Weekly global economic update

What’s happening this week in economics? Deloitte’s team of economists examines news and trends from around the world.

Ira Kalish

United States

Global economic relations are changing in anticipation of US tariffs

  • Since 2017, when the first Trump Administration began, the US share of global trade has been declining, even as the US share of global GDP has increased in line with relatively strong US economic growth. Moreover, the US share of global equity valuation has soared, a reflection of global investor confidence in the profitability of innovative US companies. Meanwhile, non-US trade has been growing and becoming more liberalized, as countries sign trade agreements.

Going forward, one question that arises is whether a further withdrawal of the United States from the global trading system will have an adverse impact on US economic growth. Trade has traditionally been a major source of economic growth for many countries. Export growth boosts employment and real GDP. Plus, export opportunities create the possibility of economies of scale, thereby driving greater efficiency. Meanwhile, growth of imports boosts competition, thereby requiring domestic producers to be more efficient and competitive. This requirement stimulates innovation and, consequently, productivity growth. Finally, past episodes of higher tariffs and reduced trade volumes have generally been accompanied by periods of slower economic growth.

From the late 1940s until 2008, global trade was characterized by periodic episodes of trade liberalization, often on a multilateral basis but sometimes involving bilateral or regional trade deals. This liberalization meant reduced barriers to trade, including lower tariffs and fewer nontariff barriers such as quantitative restrictions, regulatory hurdles, or restrictive government procurement rules. As barriers came down, global companies increasingly felt comfortable designing highly efficient global supply chains meant to achieve low costs and high speed. This process especially accelerated following China’s accession to the World Trade Organization at the start of this century.

Meanwhile, it is not simply the threat of tariffs that is changing the world trading system. Previous actions by the US government under both the Trump and Biden administrations have led to changed supply chain designs and trade patterns. Since 2017, global trade has remained a steady share of global GDP. However, US trade as a share of US GDP declined while trade as a share of national GDP increased for most other major countries. Not only did the United States impose trade restrictions, but also walked away from potential trade deals with the European Union and with Pacific Basin countries.

Since 2017, we have seen numerous instances of trade liberalization, as countries sought to reduce the risk of exposure to changes in US trade rules. The European Union negotiated eight free trade agreements while China negotiated nine such agreements. Additional agreements remain under negotiation.

What is happening now in global trading relations as the world awaits US decisions on tariffs? Although many government leaders are preparing to deal with higher US trade barriers, perhaps through retaliation, they are also rapidly seeking to expand trade with countries other than the United States. For example, the European Union has recently finalized a trade deal with a group of South American countries (Mercosur), updated a deal with Mexico, and reopened talks with Malaysia. The European Union is also engaged in trade talks with Australia and Indonesia. Plus, the EU trade minister said that many more countries have approached the European Union seeking to liberalize trade. Evidently, they are seeking to reduce their exposure to or dependence on the United States.

China, too, is moving in a similar direction. In recent years, it played a big role in fostering the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which entailed freer trade between a group of Asia-Pacific countries accounting for 30% of global GDP. Meanwhile, it is engaged in trade talks with several Latin American countries. The direction of outbound investment by Chinese companies has shifted from the United States and Europe to emerging markets. Trade flows will likely follow.

Despite all these efforts, the reality remains that the United States is the largest economy in the world and, by far, the largest importer. The US market is hugely attractive to global businesses and, with US economic growth likely to remain relatively strong, it will only become more attractive. Thus, the threat of tariffs is important. For now, there is simply uncertainty as the US administration has so far not implemented any new tariffs (as of this writing). Also, some government leaders are hoping to avert tariffs by initiating trade liberalization talks with the United States.

Aside from the impact of potential tariffs on trade and supply chain patterns, the threat of tariffs has already had an impact on financial markets. This has entailed higher US bond yields, changed expectations for Federal Reserve policy, and most importantly, a much higher-valued US dollar—although the dollar falls each time there is news suggesting less danger of tariffs.

The countries most vulnerable to such currency movements are emerging nations. For many, sharp currency depreciation can create new inflationary pressures. It can also boost the cost of servicing foreign currency–denominated debts. Thus, some emerging markets’ central banks have either started to or are considering tightening monetary policy. In addition, some emerging markets are more vulnerable to US tariffs than others. Countries with substantial trade with the United States—such as Mexico—are most vulnerable. This can affect the ability of governments and companies to raise funds through global markets. Countries that have low levels of external debt, strong domestic markets, and diversified trade are best-positioned to deal with the new environment. One country that has these attributes is India. China, by focusing on domestic demand and seeking to diversify its trade, is clearly attempting to reduce risk associated with exposure to the United States.

Finally, it is notable that the US government has focused almost exclusively on trade in goods. Yet, trade in services is hugely important and growing. The United States is not currently talking about imposing restrictions on trade in services, meaning that other countries can benefit from exporting services to the United States. Service trade is wide-ranging and includes tourism, offshored IT and professional services, insurance, other financial services, digital trade, and transportation. Some obstacles exist to service trade, especially in many emerging markets. Yet, the US market for services has been relatively open, generating growth in other countries. One example is the development of offshore services in India and other emerging markets.

The US economy remains strong

  • The US government released data on fourth quarter real GDP growth recently. The economy grew a bit slower than investors had anticipated, but still grew at a healthy pace. Growth was fueled by a big increase in consumer spending, especially on durable goods. On the other hand, overall business investment fell as demand for equipment such as airplanes declined. Investor reaction to the report was muted as the data did not conflict with expectations. Let’s look at the details:

For all of 2024, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was up 2.8% from 2023. This was very strong and was fueled by strong job growth combined with increases in labor productivity. The economy had grown 2.9% in 2023, so this was a very modest deceleration. However, it is worth recalling that, a year ago, many observers were predicting a recession in 2024 due to tight monetary policy. They were wrong.

In the fourth quarter of 2024, real GDP grew from the previous quarter at an annualized rate of 2.3%, the slowest growth since the first quarter of 2024. Real consumer spending was up 4.2%. This included growth of 12.1% for durable goods, 3.8% for nondurables, and 3.1% for services. The lion’s share of growth for durable goods came from motor vehicles and recreational goods and vehicles. The lion’s share of service growth came from health care. Real disposable personal income grew at a rate of 2.8% in the fourth quarter. As such, household spending continued to rise faster than income as consumers dipped into savings, saved less, and took on debt. Going forward, spending will likely be constrained by income.

Nonresidential fixed investment declined at an annual rate of 2.2%. This included a 1.1% decline in structures and a 7.8% decline in equipment. However, investment in intellectual property (software, research and development) increased 2.6% as businesses continued to purchase software. The sharp drop for equipment reflected a decline in demand for computers and transportation equipment. There had been strong purchases of aircraft in the previous two quarters. The easing of such purchases might explain the decline in the fourth quarter. As such, the decline in investment does not necessarily indicate a weakening of business demand. Also, there was a sharp decline in business inventories, which cut nearly 1 percentage point of growth from GDP. This likely reflected the impact of strong consumer demand. It also suggests that production and/or imports will accelerate in the coming months.

Trade made a negative contribution to real GDP growth in the fourth quarter. Both exports and imports of goods declined, while exports and imports of services grew strongly. The drop in goods imports is surprising, especially as there were reports of frontloading of imports in anticipation of tariffs. This preliminary report does not reflect imports in December. When those are added later, the first revision of GDP data might indicate growth of imports, which would subtract from real GDP growth.

Government purchases were up at a rate of 2.5%, which included a 3.3% gain for defense purchases and 3.1% for nondefense purchases. It is possible that the Biden administration frontloaded some expenditures in anticipation of a reversal by the incoming Trump administration. State and local government purchases grew more modestly at 2%.

When inventory changes and external trade are excluded, final sales to domestic purchasers were up 3.1%. This is a good indicator of underlying demand in the economy. It remained very strong in the fourth quarter. However, it decelerated from the 3.7% gain seen in the previous quarter.

Finally, the government measures both real and nominal increases in GDP and its components. The difference between the two is the change in prices. Importantly, the personal consumption expenditure deflator (PCE-deflator), which measures price changes for consumer spending, increased at an annual rate of 2.3% in the fourth quarter, indicating that headline inflation was very tame, although higher than the 1.5% rate recorded for the third quarter. When volatile food and energy prices are excluded, the core PCE-deflator was up at a rate of 2.5%, up from 2.2% in the third quarter. Although underlying inflation accelerated in the fourth quarter, it remains not far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Going forward, the US economy is likely to remain strong. However, some deceleration is likely. Consumer spending will probably grow more slowly, especially given the relatively high delinquency rate on credit card debt. Moreover, households have probably exhausted the excess savings they accumulated during the pandemic. In addition, there is a potential downside if significant tariffs are introduced. This could lead to increases in consumer prices that could undermine household purchasing power and weaken demand. Moreover, retaliatory tariffs from other countries could undermine US export growth. On the other hand, tax cuts and less intrusive regulation could have a positive impact on business investment.

US Federal Reserve keeps policy unchanged

  • As expected, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve left the benchmark federal funds interest rate unchanged, according to its press release dated Jan. 29, 2025. The decision was unanimous. In his press conference, Fed Chair Powell said that the labor market has cooled and is no longer contributing to inflation. He also said that there has been progress on inflation. Still, he also said that labor market conditions are “solid” while inflation remains “elevated,” thus driving the policy decision. Powell further said that the interest rate remains above “neutral,” indicating that monetary policy remains tight. Yet, he also said that, given the strength of the economy, the Fed needn’t rush to adjust policy.

Following the Fed’s announcement, equity prices fell while bond yields rose. This suggests that investors found the FOMC commentary to be a bit hawkish. Equity prices were already down prior to the announcement, driven by sharp declines for several key technology companies. Investors had been shaken by news from China about artificial intelligence.

Also, the decision to keep interest rates on hold partly implies that the Fed lacks sufficient data to know the direction of inflation and employment. There remains uncertainty about the future direction of government policy levers that could influence both inflation and employment. These include tax rates, spending, regulatory decisions, tariffs, and immigration policy. Going forward, the Fed will likely be data-driven. As the Trump administration’s policy unfolds, this will provide the Fed with a road map. Indeed, Powell urged patience while the Fed waits to learn more about administration policy.

Eurozone economy stagnates while ECB cuts rates

  • The European economy decelerated sharply in the fourth quarter. Real GDP was unchanged in the eurozone from the third to the fourth quarter. The last time there was no growth was in the fourth quarter of 2023. For the larger European Union, real GDP increased only 0.1% in the fourth quarter. For all of 2024, the eurozone’s GDP was up 0.7% from the previous year while EU GDP was up 0.8%.

By country, there was a disparity between Europe’s largest economies and the Mediterranean economies. Germany’s real GDP fell 0.2% from the third to the fourth quarter after experiencing modest growth in the previous quarter. France’s real GDP fell 0.1%. Real GDP in Italy was unchanged. On the other hand, Spain’s real GDP was up 0.8% (an annualized rate of 3.2%) while Portugal’s real GDP was up a stunning 1.5% (an annualized rate of 6.1%). Thus, the Iberian Peninsula is on fire, driven by tourism and immigration.

The weakness of the European economy was unexpected. It likely reinforced the view that the European Central Bank (ECB) will engage in monetary policy easing in the months to come. Indeed, the ECB cut its benchmark rate recently. European bond yields fell while equity prices increased, considering expectations of further rate cuts.

Regarding the ECB decision, the Governing Council cut all three policy interest rates by 25 basis points. The deposit facility rate has been cut from 4.5% in May to 2.75%. The ECB said that inflation is now on track to reach the 2% goal this year. It said that wage growth is easing, thereby reducing the impact of the labor market on inflation. ECB President Lagarde said that monetary policy remains restrictive but that continued easing of policy will reduce constraints on credit activity. She also said that the eurozone economy faces “headwinds,” but that rising real incomes and lower interest rates should help boost activity.

Lagarde said that manufacturing is weak but that this is offset by strength in services. She said that “consumer confidence is fragile, and households have not yet drawn sufficient encouragement from rising real incomes to significantly increase their spending.” She also said that there are downside risks to the economy, especially coming from potential external events. She said that “greater friction in global trade could weigh on euro area growth by dampening exports and weakening the global economy.” When asked whether US tariffs would be inflationary or deflationary for Europe, she said that she doesn’t know. However, she said that, either way, it would have a negative impact on the eurozone economy.

There is now a widespread expectation that the ECB will continue to cut interest rates throughout the year, likely faster than the US Fed cuts rates. This could result in further downward pressure on the value of the euro, which could be inflationary. On the other hand, it could boost the competitiveness of the eurozone’s exports.

By

Ira Kalish

United States

Acknowledgments

Cover image by: Sofia Sergi