Connect with us

Spread & Containment

Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: The China Factor

In a January 2022 post, we first presented the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI), a parsimonious global measure designed to capture supply chain…

Published

2 months ago

on

Ozge Akinci, Gianluca Benigno, Hunter Clark, William Cross-Bermingham, and Ethan Nourbash 

In a January 2022 post, we first presented the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI), a parsimonious global measure designed to capture supply chain disruptions using a range of indicators. In this post, we review GSCPI readings through December 2022, and then briefly discuss the drivers of recent moves in the index. While supply chain disruptions have significantly diminished over the course of 2022, the reversion of the index toward a normal historical range has paused over the past three months. Our analysis attributes the recent pause largely to the pandemic in China amid an easing of “Zero COVID” policies.

Updated GSCPI

The GSCPI peaked at 4.3 standard deviations above its historical mean at the end of 2021, after which it declined substantially. The initial period of decline saw it drop to 2.8 by March 2022, after which it temporarily increased in April, primarily due to pandemic lockdowns in China and the Russia-Ukraine war. The GSCPI then experienced five consecutive months of declines, reaching a low of 0.9 in September. However, the past three months have witnessed a pause in the reversion to the historical average, with the index increasing by a total of 0.29 points in October and November before declining by 0.05 points last month, leaving the total three-month increase at about a quarter point. Synchronously, we have seen a worsening COVID situation in China. The goal of this post is to examine how much of the resurgent upward supply chain pressures can be attributed to China’s evolving policies in response to the current outbreak.

Global Supply Chain Pressure Index Returning to Historical Average on Pause

Liberty Street Economics chart showing the reversion of the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index toward a normal historical range has slowed in the past two months.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Harper Petersen Holding GmbH; Baltic Exchange; IHS Markit; Institute for Supply Management; Haver Analytics; Bloomberg L.P.; authors’ calculations.
Note: Each index is scaled by its standard deviation; GDP Weighted Supply Chain Pressure Index is constructed by aggregating USA, GBR, EA, CHN, JPN, TWN, KOR supply chain pressure indices via GDP weights.

Methodology

Before analyzing this recent pickup in supply chain pressures, we remind readers that the GSCPI is based on two sets of data. Global transportation costs are measured by using data on ocean shipping costs, for which we employ data from the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) and the Harpex index, as well as BLS airfreight cost indices for freight flights between Asia, Europe, and the United States. We also use supply chain-related components of Purchase Manager Index (PMI) surveys—“delivery times,” “backlogs,” and “purchased stocks”—for manufacturing firms across seven interconnected economies: China, the euro area, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Before combining these data within the GSCPI by means of principal component analysis, we filter out demand effects from the underlying series by regressing the PMI supply chain components on the “new orders” components of the corresponding PMI surveys and, in a similar vein, regressing the global transportation cost measures onto GDP-weighted “new orders” and “inputs purchased” components across the seven PMI surveys.

China’s Contribution

In the following chart we analyze China’s contributions to the GSCPI by combining all underlying variables most directly related to China’s supply chain conditions and comparing the contribution of these “China factors” to the influence of the remaining underlying variables. Over the course of the pandemic, China’s contributions to the GSCPI were generally small or negative, with significant exceptions for large positive contributions in February 2020, April 2022, and the two recent data releases for October and November 2022. (A large positive Chinese contribution in August 2021 was almost entirely driven by a very large, temporary spike in the Asia outbound air freight index which may not have been related to China supply conditions).

China’s large positive contributions were generally followed by tightening supply conditions in the rest of the world.  A novel aspect of the most recent developments is that Chinese conditions appear more divergent from global supply conditions. One possible interpretation is that China’s new wave of COVID has limited spillovers to developed countries where vaccination rates are higher and lockdown measures are less severe.

The Chinese contribution declined to about zero in December, which was consistent with a modest improvement that was shown in supply delivery times in the S&P Global/Caixin PMI index, which is used in construction of the GSCPI. However, an alternative PMI index published by China’s National Bureau of Statistics, which uses a different survey sample than the private Caixin index, showed a very large worsening of supplier delivery times. This divergence between the two indices raises an important watchpoint as to the direction of China’s contribution to the GSCPI in coming months.

GSCPI Pressures During Entire Pandemic

Liberty Street Economics chart showing China’s contributions to the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-22.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Harper Petersen Holding GmbH; Baltic Exchange; IHS Markit; Institute for Supply Management; Haver Analytics; Bloomberg L.P.; authors’ calculations.
Note: Positive values indicate tightening supply chain conditions while negative values indicate loosening conditions. Chinese factors is defined as Chinese delivery times, backlogs, purchased stocks, and Asia Inbound/Outbound air freight costs.

To further assess these divergent trends, we illustrate how each of the underlying variables contributed to the overall change in the GSCPI in the last three months. Each column represents the contribution, in standard deviations, of each component of our index to the overall change in the index during a given period. Over the past three months, the largest contributing factors to increasing supply chain pressures were Asia outbound air freight costs and Korean delivery times. These contributions were partially offset by improvements in sectors such as U.S. and euro area delivery times. The sum of all positive components increased the GSCPI by 1.16 standard deviations while the negative components decreased it by 0.92 standard deviations, resulting in a 0.24 three-month change in the GSCPI.

In December 2022 We Observe Divergent Trends in Supply Chain Conditions

Liberty Street Economics bar chart showing how each of the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index’s underlying variables contributed to the overall change in the index in the last two months.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Harper Petersen Holding GmbH; Baltic Exchange; IHS Markit; Institute for Supply Management; Haver Analytics; Bloomberg L.P.; authors’ calculations.

Chinese Factor Counterfactual

We run two counterfactual exercises to understand the magnitude of recent developments in China on the GSCPI. In the first exercise, we assume Chinese factors contribute zero to the last three months of the GSCPI. In the second, we assume that Chinese factors contribute values identical to their September levels. The results of these exercises are that GSCPI would have been .03 higher or .17 lower, respectively, from its September levels rather than the current .24 higher. Because Chinese factors improved the GSCPI in September (that is, reduced the index), the September contributions counterfactual is lower than the zero contributions counterfactual. Overall, our simple analysis suggests that the direct impact of recent movements of Chinese indicators is limited but has caused a pause in the improvement in the GSCPI.

Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: Chinese Factor Contributions Counterfactual

Chinese factors set to true values, zero, and September values

Liberty Street Economics chart showing the impact of recent developments in China on the Global Supply Chain Pressure Index.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Harper Petersen Holding GmbH; Baltic Exchange; IHS Markit; Institute for Supply Management; Haver Analytics; Bloomberg L.P.; authors’ calculations.
Note: Each index is scaled by its standard deviation; GDP Weighted Supply Chain Pressure Index is constructed by aggregating USA, GBR, EA, CHN, JPN, TWN, KOR suppply chain pressure indices via GDP weights. Chinese factors is defined as Chinese delivery times, backlogs, purchased stocks, and Asia Inbound/Outbound air freight costs.

Conclusions

In this post, we provide an update of the GSCPI through December 2022. After analyzing the contributions of the underlying variables in the index, we can partly attribute the recent slowdown of the GSCPI’s return to its historical average to worsening supply conditions in China, which have also spilled over into its neighboring trade partners. In this context, it will be interesting to see how future GSCPI readings evolve in light of the recent relaxation of China’s pandemic restrictions and resulting wave of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Chart data

Ozge Akinci is an economic research advisor in International Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Gianluca Benigno is the head of International Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Hunter L. Clark is an international policy advisor in International Studies in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group. 

William Cross-Bermingham is a research analyst in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

Ethan Nourbash is a research analyst in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

How to cite this post:
Ozge Akinci, Gianluca Benigno, Hunter Clark, William Cross-Bermingham, and Ethan Nourbash , “Global Supply Chain Pressure Index: The China Factor,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, January 6, 2023, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/01/global-supply-chain-pressure-index-the-china-factor/.

You may also be interested in:

A New Barometer of Global Supply Chain Pressures

Global Supply Chain Pressure Index

Applied Macroeconomics & Econometrics Center (AMEC)

Applied Macroeconomics & Econometrics Center (AMEC)

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).

Read More

Related Topics:

Continue Reading

Government

Three Years To Slow The Spread: COVID Hysteria & The Creation Of A Never-Ending Crisis

Three Years To Slow The Spread: COVID Hysteria & The Creation Of A Never-Ending Crisis

Authored by Jordan Schachtel via ‘The Dossier’…

Published

60 mins ago

on

March 21, 2023

By

Three Years To Slow The Spread: COVID Hysteria & The Creation Of A Never-Ending Crisis

Authored by Jordan Schachtel via 'The Dossier' Substack,

Last Thursday marked the three year anniversary of the infamous “15 Days To Slow The Spread” campaign.

By March 16, yours truly was already pretty fed up with both the governmental and societal “response” to what was being baselessly categorized as the worst pandemic in 100 years, despite zero statistical data supporting such a serious claim.

I was living in the Washington, D.C. Beltway at the time, and it was pretty much impossible to find a like-minded person within 50 miles who also wasn’t taking the bait. After I read about the news coming out of Wuhan in January, I spent much of the next couple weeks catching up to speed and reading about what a modern pandemic response was supposed to look like.

What surprised me most was that none of “the measures” were mentioned, and that these designated “experts” were nothing more than failed mathematicians, government doctors, and college professors who were more interested in policy via shoddy academic forecasting than observing reality.

Within days of continually hearing their yapping at White House pressers, It quickly became clear that the Deborah Birx’s and Anthony Fauci’s of the world were engaging in nothing more than a giant experiment. There was no an evidence-based approach to managing Covid whatsoever. These figures were leaning into the collective hysteria, and brandishing their credentials as Public Health Experts to demand top-down approaches to stamping out the WuFlu.

To put it bluntly, these longtime government bureaucrats had no idea what the f—k they were doing. Fauci and his cohorts were not established or reputable scientists, but authoritarians, charlatans, who had a decades-long track record of hackery and corruption. This Coronavirus Task Force did not have the collective intellect nor the wisdom to be making these broad brush decisions.

Back then, there were only literally a handful of people who attempted to raise awareness about the wave of tyranny, hysteria, and anti-science policies that were coming our way. There were so few of us back in March in 2020 that it was impossible to form any kind of significant structured resistance to the madness that was unfolding before us. These structures would later form, but not until the infrastructure for the highway to Covid hysteria hell had already been cemented.

Making matters worse was the reality that the vast majority of the population — friends, colleagues, peers and family included — agreed that dissenters were nothing more than reckless extremists, bioterrorists, Covid deniers, anti-science rabble rousers, and the like.

Yet we were right, and we had the evidence and data to prove it. There was no evidence to ever support such a heavy-handed series of government initiatives to “slow the spread.”

By March 16, 2020, data had already accumulated indicating that this contagion would be no more lethal than an influenza outbreak.

The February, 2020 outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship provided a clear signal that the hysteria models provided by Bill Gates-funded and managed organizations were incredibly off base. Of the 3,711 people aboard the Diamond Princess, about 20% tested positive with Covid. The majority of those who tested positive had zero symptoms. By the time all passengers had disembarked from the vessel, there were 7 reported deaths on the ship, with the average age of this cohort being in the mid 80s, and it wasn’t even clear if these passengers died from or with Covid.

Despite the strange photos and videos coming out of Wuhan, China, there was no objective evidence of a once in a century disease approaching America’s shores, and the Diamond Princess outbreak made that clear.

Of course, it wasn’t the viral contagion that became the problem.

It was the hysteria contagion that brought out the worst qualities of much of the global ruling class, letting world leaders take off their proverbial masks in unison and reveal their true nature as power drunk madmen.

And even the more decent world leaders were swept up in the fear and mayhem, turning over the keys of government control to the supposed all-knowing Public Health Experts.

They quickly shuttered billions of lives and livelihoods, wreaking exponentially more havoc than a novel coronavirus ever could.

In the United States, 15 Days to Slow The Spread quickly became 30 Days To Slow The Spread. Somewhere along the way, the end date for “the measures” was removed from the equation entirely.

3 years later, there still isn’t an end date…

Anthony Fauci appeared on MSNBC Thursday morning and declared that Americans would need annual Covid boosters to compliment their Flu shots.

So much of the Covid hysteria era was driven by pseudoscience and outright nonsense, and yet, very few if any world leaders took it upon themselves to restore sanity in their domains. Now, unsurprisingly, so many elected officials who were complicit in this multi-billion person human tragedy won’t dare to reflect upon it.

In a 1775 letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, the American Founding Father wrote:

“Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”

Covid hysteria and the 3 year anniversary of 15 Days To Slow The Spread serves as the beginning period of a permanent scar resulting from government power grabs and federal overreach.

While life is back to normal in most of the country, the Overton window of acceptable policy has slid even further in the direction of push-button tyranny. Hopefully, much of the world has awakened to the reality that most of the people in charge aren’t actually doing what’s best for their respective populations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/21/2023 - 18:05

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Honey, the 3D print–I mean, dessert–is ready!

New York, NY—March 21, 2023—Cooking devices that incorporate three-dimensional (3D) printers, lasers, or other software-driven processes may soon replace…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 21, 2023

By

New York, NY—March 21, 2023—Cooking devices that incorporate three-dimensional (3D) printers, lasers, or other software-driven processes may soon replace conventional cooking appliances such as ovens, stovetops, and microwaves. But will people want to use a 3D printer–even one as beautifully designed as a high-end coffee maker–on their kitchen counters to calibrate the exact micro- and macro-nutrients they need to stay healthy? Will 3D food printing improve the ways we nourish ourselves? What sorts of hurdles will need to be overcome to commercialize such a technology? 

Credit: Jonathan Blutinger/Columbia Engineering

New York, NY—March 21, 2023—Cooking devices that incorporate three-dimensional (3D) printers, lasers, or other software-driven processes may soon replace conventional cooking appliances such as ovens, stovetops, and microwaves. But will people want to use a 3D printer–even one as beautifully designed as a high-end coffee maker–on their kitchen counters to calibrate the exact micro- and macro-nutrients they need to stay healthy? Will 3D food printing improve the ways we nourish ourselves? What sorts of hurdles will need to be overcome to commercialize such a technology? 

Columbia mechanical engineers are working to address these challenges in Professor Hod Lipson’s Creative Machines Lab. In a new Perspective article published today by npj Science of Food, lead author Jonathan Blutinger, a postdoctoral fellow in the lab, explores these questions and more, discussing with Professor Christen Cooper, Pace University Nutrition and Dietetics, the benefits and drawbacks of 3D-printed food technology, how 3D-printed food compares to the “normal” food we eat, and the future landscape of our kitchens. 

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/AhVfU71tb2k 

Food printing technology has existed since Lipson’s lab first introduced it in 2005, but to date the technology has been limited to a small number of uncooked ingredients, resulting in what many perceive as less than appetizing dishes. Blutinger’s team broke away from this limitation by printing a dish comprising seven ingredients, cooked in situ using a laser. For the paper, the researchers designed a 3D-printing system that constructs cheesecake from edible food inks — including peanut butter, Nutella, and strawberry jam. The authors note that precision printing of multi-layered food items could produce more customizable foods, improve food safety, and enable users to control the nutrient content of meals more easily. 

“Because 3D food printing is still a nascent technology, it needs an ecosystem of supporting industries such as food cartridge manufacturers, downloadable recipe files, and an environment in which to create and share these recipes. Its customizability makes it particularly practical for the plant-based meat market, where texture and flavor need to be carefully formulated to mimic real meats,” Blutinger said.

To demonstrate the potential of 3D food printing, the team tested various cheesecake designs, consisting of seven key ingredients: graham cracker, peanut butter, Nutella, banana puree, strawberry jam, cherry drizzle, and frosting. They found that the most successful design used a graham cracker as the foundational ingredient for each layer of the cake. Peanut butter and Nutella proved to be best used as supporting layers that formed “pools” to hold the softer ingredients: banana and jam. Multi-ingredient designs evolved into multi-tiered structures that followed similar principles to building architectures; more structural elements were needed to support softer substrates for a successful multi-ingredient layered print.

“We have an enormous problem with the low-nutrient value of processed foods,” Cooper said. “3D food printing will still turn out processed foods, but perhaps the silver lining will be, for some people, better control and tailoring of nutrition–personalized nutrition. It may also be useful in making food more appealing to those with swallowing disorders by mimicking the shapes of real foods with the pureed texture foods that these patients–millions in the U.S. alone–require.”

Laser cooking and 3D food printing could allow chefs to localize flavors and textures on a millimeter scale to create new food experiences. People with dietary restrictions, parents of young children, nursing home dieticians, and athletes alike could find these personalized techniques very useful and convenient in planning meals. And, because the system uses high-energy targeted light for high-resolution tailored heating, cooking could become more cost-effective and more sustainable. 

“The study also highlights that printed food dishes will likely require novel ingredient compositions and structures, due to the different way by which the food is ‘assembled,’ ” said Lipson. “Much work is still needed to collect data, model, and optimize these processes.”

Blutinger added, “And, with more emphasis on food safety following the COVID-19 pandemic, food prepared with less human handling could lower the risk of foodborne illness and disease transmission. This seems like a win-win concept for all of us.”

About the Study

Journal: npj Science of Food

The paper is titled “THE FUTURE OF SOFTWARE-CONTROLLED COOKING.”

Authors of the paper are: Jonathan David Blutinger 1, Christen Cupples Cooper2 , Shravan Karthik1 , Alissa Tsai 1 , Noà Samarelli1 , Erika Storvick1 , Gabriel Seymour1 , Elise Liu1 , Yorán Meijers1,3 and Hod Lipson1
1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia Engineering
2 Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Pace University
3 Department of Food Technology, Wageningen University, Netherlands.

The study was supported by NSF AI Institute for Dynamical Systems, grant 2112085, and by a grant from the Redefine Meat Ltd.

The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest. 

###

LINKS:

Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-023-00182-6
DOI: 10.1038/s41538-023-00182-6

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/AhVfU71tb2k 

PROJECT WEBSITE: 
https://www.creativemachineslab.com/laser-cooking.html
https://www.creativemachineslab.com/digital-food.html

###

Columbia Engineering

Since 1864, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science at Columbia University has been a resource to the world for major advances in human progress. Today, Columbia Engineering is the top engineering school in the Ivy League and New York City. As a nexus for high-impact research, the school convenes more than 250 faculty members and more than 6,000 undergraduate and graduate students from around the globe to push the frontiers of knowledge and solve humanity’s most pressing problems

###

 

Journal

npj Science of Food

DOI

10.1038/s41538-023-00182-6

Article Title

The future of software-controlled cooking

Article Publication Date

21-Mar-2023

COI Statement

The authors declare no financial or other conflicts of interest.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

“An Extraordinary Change”: Labor Data Reveals Shocking Drop In Workplace Attendance Following Vax Campaign

"An Extraordinary Change": Labor Data Reveals Shocking Drop In Workplace Attendance Following Vax Campaign

Last we heard from former Blackrock…

Published

6 hours ago

on

March 21, 2023

By

"An Extraordinary Change": Labor Data Reveals Shocking Drop In Workplace Attendance Following Vax Campaign

Last we heard from former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd and his deep-dive partners at Phinance Technologies, the rate of Serious Adverse Events reported during Covid-19 vaccine trials closely tracked a spike in disabilities reported following the vaccine's official rollout.

In their latest analysis, Dowd and crew use data from the Bureau of Labor Statistcs (BLS) to reveal a shocking spike in both employee absence and lost worktime rates, which they believe is due to vaccines - either from primary vaccine injuries, or because of weakened immune systems due to the jab, and not long covid caused by the virus itself.

Via Phinance Technologies

"It’s not a stretch to conclude from this data that the vaccines are causing death, disabilities & injuries due to a degradation of individuals' immune system," Dowd says. "The rate of change is not explained by the long Covid trope. Ask yourself where is funding for such studies?"

For those who want to dive right in to the analysis, follow the below links:

Part 1 - Overview of the Data

Part 2 - Analysis of Absence rates

Part 3 - Analysis of Lost Worktime rates

For the cliffs notes version, Dowd has dropped the following Twitter thread summarizing their analysis:

And for those who fell asleep in statistics class;

As one commenter notes, data from the UK reveals that firms are coming under increased pressure due to rising staff sickness, particularly among those over the age of 50. 

More to come next week...

Dowd explained his views how he reacted to the pandemic to Tucker Carlson. Now he, and his partners, spend their time poring through data to shine a light on harsh realities.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/21/2023 - 12:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending