Skip to main content

Real Imports: Behind the Headline Numbers

Between 2017 and 2025, U.S. merchandise import figures seemed to surge dramatically, with headlines often citing record-breaking nominal numbers. However, a significant portion of this apparent growth was not an increase in the volume of goods Americans purchased but was pure inflation. When adjusted for rising prices using the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) chain-linked methodology, the story of real import growth is far more modest.

The Inflation Illusion

Headline numbers can be highly deceptive. In 2024, U.S. goods imports hit a nominal record of $3,295.6 billion. But when adjusted for inflation (using 2017 chained dollars), real imports were $2,870.2 billion.

Chart 1: Nominal vs Chain-Linked Real Imports

Figure 1: U.S. merchandise imports in nominal (current) dollars vs. chain-linked real terms (2017 base year). The widening gap reveals how import price inflation masked true volume trends.

The most dramatic divergence between these nominal (current dollar) and real (volume) figures occurred during the 2021-2022 supply chain crisis. Import prices surged to levels unseen in decades, driven by global factors. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that import price inflation peaked at 8% in the second half of 2021. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston noted that surging shipping costs alone accounted for 68-111% of the increase in import price inflation.

Chart 2: Import Price Index

Figure 2: Import Price Index (normalized to 2017=100) shows the dramatic surge in import prices during 2021-2022, which has since moderated.

During this period, nominal import values exploded not because Americans were buying more stuff, but because that stuff cost significantly more to produce and ship.

Decomposing the Growth: 2017 vs. 2024

Comparing the 2024 data to the 2017 base year reveals the stark difference:

  • Nominal imports (headline number) grew 39.6%.
  • Real imports (actual volume) grew only 14.7%.

The massive 24.9 percentage point gap is attributable purely to import price inflation. The worst year was 2022, when a staggering 22.5 percentage point gap opened between nominal and real growth, driven by an 18.3% surge in import prices that year alone.

Chart 3: Growth Decomposition

Figure 3: Decomposition of year-over-year import growth into real volume growth (green) and import price inflation (red). The stacked areas show how nominal growth splits between these components.

2024: A Return to Normalcy

By 2024, the situation normalized. Import prices finally stabilized as global supply chains recovered and shipping costs fell. This stabilization allowed real economic activity to shine through. The 5.1% real import growth in 2024 was driven by genuine volume increases in key categories:

  • Capital Goods: Computers, accessories, and semiconductors.
  • Consumer Goods: Primarily pharmaceutical preparations.
  • Automotive: Record-breaking imports of vehicles.

The "Real" Trade Deficit

This inflation illusion also distorts the U.S. trade deficit. In 2024, the nominal goods deficit increased by a concerning $148.5 billion. However, the real deficit (which measures the volume imbalance) grew by only $98.8 billion. Nearly $80 billion of the headline deficit increase was just a price effect, not a worsening of the actual trade imbalance in goods.

While future challenges like tariffs could reintroduce price volatility, the 2017-2025 data provides a clear lesson: headline trade numbers often mask the truth. The real story was one of modest volume growth, temporarily obscured by a massive, once-in-a-generation inflationary surge.

Comments

Post a Comment

Constructive feedback is always welcome. Thank you

Popular posts from this blog

Unemployment by state in the USA

Below is a visualization of unemployment rates by county using a powerful Python library called Bokeh . The two maps are for the states of Texas and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. As the second largest economy in the United States (10th largest in the world), Texas shows interesting county variation in macroeconomic factors such as unemployment. According to Wikipedia , in 2015, Texas was home to six of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list and 51 overall (third most after New York and California). The northern counties were least affected by the financial crisis of 2008/09. Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington area encompasses 13 counties which constitute the economic and cultural hub of the region commonly called North Texas or North Central Texas. Bokeh Plot The least affected counties in Massachusetts were the southernmost tourist areas of Nantuckett and Dukes County. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Modeling Core PCE inflation: A dual approach

Today's release of the August 2025 Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation data drew widespread media attention, with coverage highlighting both the persistence of inflation and its implications for Federal Reserve policy. Across outlets, analysts pointed to resilient consumer spending and income growth as signs of underlying economic strength, even as inflation remains above the Fed's 2% target. The consensus among media reports is that while inflation is not worsening, its stubbornness continues to challenge policymakers navigating a softening labor market and evolving rate expectations. To provide deeper insights into inflation's trajectory, I've developed a forecasting framework that combines two econometric approaches — ARIMA time series modeling and Phillips Curve analysis—to predict Core PCE inflation. This analysis presents a unique opportunity to validate my forecasting methodology against eight months of 2025 data. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Do Minimum Wage Increases Really Kill Jobs? Evidence from the "Fight for $15" Era

The debate over minimum wage policy has raged for decades, with economists, policymakers, and business leaders offering sharply different predictions about its effects on employment. Critics warn that raising the minimum wage will force employers to cut jobs, while supporters argue that higher wages boost worker productivity and spending power. But what does the actual data tell us. Using a comprehensive difference-in-differences analysis and Federal Reserve Economic Data covering 43 U.S. states from 2012-2020 of the "Fight for $15" movement between 2012 and 2020, I provide some evidence about how minimum wage increases actually affect employment in the real world. The Perfect Natural Experiment The period from 2012 to 2020 provided economists with an ideal "natural experiment" to study minimum wage effects. Here's why this timeframe was perfect for analysis: Federal Stability : The federal minimum wage remained frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009, creating ...
Post a Comment
Read more