The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Atlanta, Georgia September A ls o in • t h is 1964 is s u e : SIXTH DISTRICT STATISTICS DISTRICT BUSINESS CONDITIONS 3& feraf Tfyserve IBanko f International Trade and District Ports The Constitution reserves the regulation of foreign commerce to the Federal government and specifically says that the states shall not “with out the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports. . . Because state governments are thus prevented from controlling foreign trade directly, they have felt little need to gather data on the dealings of their citizens with foreigners. It is a little ironic that the information we have about, say, Georgia’s dealings with the rest of the world is much less complete than that available for El Salvador, for example. But we gather data about the things that are most important to us, and for many years U. S. foreign trade has been but a small fraction of internal trade. We have been so busy developing the resources of a continent that we have paid relatively less attention to foreign trade, at least until recently, than any other major industrial nation. Nevertheless, state governments that are concerned about the eco nomic well-being of their citizens are vitally interested in their foreign trade activities. Huge and varied as are the resources of the United States, it is not self-sufficient. To take only the steel industry as an example, some metals important to the making of certain kinds of steel, such as tungsten and titanium, are not found in sufficient quantity in this country and must be imported. Our iron ore resources, though still large, are gradually being exhausted. Birmingham, which owed its existence to the iron and coal mines in its vicinity, now imports nearly all of its iron ore from Venezuela through the port of Mobile. Access to foreign markets for our exports is important, too, for the wider the market for a region’s exports, the more it can benefit from geographical division of labor. The economic well-being of a region’s citizens depends on the extent to which they can concentrate on pro ducing those things in which they have a comparative advantage and exchange them through trade for other products they desire but could only produce for themselves at greater expenditure of time and energy. Aside from these general considerations, there are more immediate and specific reasons for state governments to be interested in the flow of international trade through their ports. After all, some of the most obvious benefits of such trade lie in the handling and distribution activities to which it gives rise. New York owes its dominant financial and commercial position to its early prominence as the leading port through which trade flowed between Europe and the U. S. Once started, the process of concentration, moreover, becomes cumulative. The more traffic through the port, the stronger the tendency for distribution activities to locate there; and the larger a distribution center it becomes, the more it attracts foreign trade. Furthermore, a port frequently attracts manufacturing plants because goods must be unloaded there and, rather TABLE 1 Exports and Imports of Leading U. S. Customs Districts, 1962 and 1939 ( M illio n s o f D o l la r s ) EXPORTS C ustom s D istrict New York New Orleans Michigan Galveston Virginia Buffalo San Francisco Maryland Washington St. Lawrence Laredo Los Angeles Florida Philadelphia Sabine Oregon Chicago Ohio Dakota Duluth-Superior Mobile Vermont All Other Total Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1962 5,786 1,706 1,450 1,426 814 779 762 569 539 508 486 480 408 391 365 346 268 255 238 231 220 141 3,752 21,556 The Importance of Sixth District Ports 1939 P ercent o f T otal 1 3 4 2 8 7 6 10 11 14 13 5 17 9 12 18 1,294 181 174 261 97 110 120 89 78 40 76 152 32 93 78 30 40.7 5.7 5.5 8.2 3.1 3.5 3.8 2.8 2.5 1.3 2.4 4.8 1.0 2.9 2.5 0.9 19 15 29 36 0.9 1.1 20 16 24 34 147 3,177 0.7 1.1 4.6 100.0 P ercent o f T otal R ank 26.8 7.9 6.7 6.6 3.8 3.6 3.5 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.7 17.4 100.0 IMPORTS C ustom s D istrict New York Philadelphia Michigan Los Angeles Maryland New Orleans Massachusetts San Francisco Buffalo Galveston Washington St. Lawrence Chicago Florida Virginia Dakota Duluth-Superior Vermont Puerto Rico South Carolina Maine-New Hampshire North Carolina All Other Total P ercent o f T otal Rank Rank 1962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 5,394 1,166 996 847 691 681 576 547 500 462 452 336 330 306 282 261 241 211 192 188 32.9 7.1 6.1 5.2 4.2 4.2 3.5 3.3 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.2 158 83 1,749 16,407 1.0 0.5 10.7 100.0 than reload them and move them inland, it is frequently cheaper to manufacture or process them at that point. Once the process of concentration proceeds far enough, it is natural for the institutions that finance all this activity to locate close to their best customers. 1939 Percent o f T otal 1 3 5 7 8 4 2 9 6 15 11 13 10 18 12 19 20 14 1,149 132 71 67 66 98 145 60 70 27 34 32 36 19 34 19 16 30 50.5 5.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 4.3 6.4 2.6 3.1 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.6 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.7 1.3 17 16 19 21 130 2,276 0.9 0.9 5.7 100.0 There are some 47 customs districts through which goods enter or leave the United States. If these districts are ranked in order of importance, as they are in Table 1, it can be seen that New York handles by far the largest volume of U. S. foreign trade. No other customs district is even close. And this was true in 1962, as well as in 1939. It is also notable that the ranking of the districts has changed very little in those 23 years. New York, New Orleans, Michigan, and Galveston* were the top four in both years in exports, and New York, Philadelphia, and Michigan were among the top five in imports in both years. New Orleans gave way to Los Angeles, and Massa chusetts dropped from second to seventh place, while Maryland came up from eighth to fifth. Although New York remains without a close rival, its share of both exports and imports has dropped sharply. Some of the other large districts have increased their percentages, but the big change has come in the “all other” category, that is, all those other than the top 20. The 27 lowest-ranking customs districts increased their share of total exports almost three times between 1939 and 1962 and nearly doubled their share of total imports. In some small part this can be explained, particularly for the inland districts, by the development of international shipments by air. The largest part of the explanation must lie, however, in the harbor and other improvements made to a large number of small ocean ports on all our coasts. Unques tionably, foreign trade is less concentrated in New York and a few other major ports than it was twenty-five years ago. Most of the international trade through several customs districts is by land, for example, Michigan, Buffalo, Laredo (in 1939, its headquarters were at San Antonio), Dakota, and Vermont. When we look only at waterborne commerce, therefore, they become much less important. For instance, Michigan, number three in both total ex ports and total imports in 1962, ranks seventeenth and sixteenth in waterborne exports and imports. New Orleans remains in second place, with nearly 12 percent of total waterborne exports and fourth rank in waterborne im ports, which comprise nearly 6 percent of the total. Com bining outgoing and incoming traffic, the New Orleans customs district is clearly the second most important in terms of goods moving by water. If all means of trans portation are considered, however, Michigan just does beat her out for second place. Each customs district includes several individual ports. Table 2, which is presented on Pages 3 and 4, shows how the ports in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana compare with other selected ports in both weight and value of goods handled. Four District ports are clearly among the twenty most important in the nation, but their importance varies greatly, depending on whether we speak of imports or exports, weight or value. New . 2 • Orleans, for example, is certainly the second largest port in the country in terms of the value of goods handled, yet, in terms of tonnage, it is only in sixth place. Its ex ports, both by weight and value, are considerably larger than its imports. But the percentages of the dollar volume of both imports and exports going through New Orleans are greater than the percentages of weight of goods handled. New York runs to an even greater extreme in this respect, for it handles only 5 percent of exports by weight but 37 percent by value. Tampa, on the other hand, shows just the opposite characteristics with its im ports and exports both being larger percentages of the total by weight than by value. Characteristics of District Ports Each port has a different “personality,” which is formed by the types ,of goods it handles. Tampa, for instance, is highly specialized in the export of phosphate rock, which is used in the manufacture of fertilizer. It is thus primarily a bulk commodity, rather than a general cargo, port. On the import side too, bulk commodities, such as dry sulphur, gypsum rock, bananas, and fuel oil, are most important. Most of Mobile’s import tonnage consists of aluminum and iron ores, while its exports are mainly soybeans, wheat flour, com, and animal feeds. Baton Rouge’s traffic is very similar to Mobile’s except that TABLE 2 Foreign W aterborne Commerce of Selected U. S. Ports, 1962 By W eight ( M illio n s o f P o u n d s ) P ort Sixth District Savannah Brunswick Jacksonville West Palm Beach Port Everglades Miami Key West Boca Grande Tampa Port St. Joe Panama City Pensacola Mobile Pascagoula Gulfport New Orleans Baton Rouge Lake Charles District Total New York Norfolk-Newport News Philadelphia Baltimore I.os Angeles Houston Toledo Boston Corpus Christi San Francisco Bay Chicago Duluth-Superior Port Arthur-Beaumont Cleveland Galveston Seattle-Tacoma Portland Detroit Ashtabula Charleston Total Rank 13 11 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 T otal Trade P ercent o f T otal 5,169 944 6,682 880 2,616 991 151 808 11,159 24 524 276 13,417 2,444 532 25,017 19,704 2,389 93,727 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.9 0.3 0.1 3.5 2.8 0.3 13.1 19 91,296 67,352 48.218 46,911 33,898 20,140 16,586 13,822 13,297 10,887 10,273 9,746 9,362 8,405 7,552 7 ,310 6,823 6,363 6,239 3,423 717,138 12.7 9.4 6.7 6.5 4.7 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.5 100.0 4 1 13 7 6 5 3 0.1 1.6 Rank 10 0.1 2 11 18 16 15 8 9 12 17 14 20 P ercent o f T otal Rank 1.176 110 575 33 183 244 0.4 17 0.2 14 773 8,659 20 375 100 3,182 2,369 263 17,662 8,556 1,986 4 6,266 0.3 3.2 1.2 0.9 0.1 6.5 3.1 0.7 17.0 14,207 56,185 6,413 10,381 10,687 13,269 15,540 1,220 3,627 4,248 4,521 9,608 8,871 277 7,274 3,698 5,364 975 2,759 784 272,093 5.2 20.7 2.4 3.8 3.9 4.9 5.7 0.5 1.3 1.6 1.7 3.5 3.3 0.1 2.7 1.4 2.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 100.0 E xports 0.1 0.1 0.1 8 11 7 1 6 2 3 4 12 5 9 13 15 10 18 16 19 20 Im ports 3,993 834 6,107 847 2,433 747 151 35 2,500 4 149 176 10,235 75 269 7,355 11,148 403 47,461 77,089 11,167 41,805 36,530 23,211 6,871 1,046 12,602 9,670 6,638 5,752 138 490 8,128 278 3,613 1,459 5,388 3,480 2,639 445,045 Percent o f T otal 0.9 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 2.3 0.1 1.7 2.5 0.1 10.7 17.3 2.5 9.4 8.2 5.2 1.5 0.2 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.3 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.8 0.6 100.0 such as naval stores and lumber, and the closely related paper products made from wood obtained from native forests at paper mills located in coastal cities. Thus, wood pulp and paperboard are quite important exports for Jack sonville and Savannah. Imports of the South Atlantic group are mainly petroleum products, gypsum rock, and sugar. Considerable changes have occurred in the last few years at most of these ports in both the quantity and types of goods handled. One significant development has been the tremendous growth in the export of wheat, com, and soybeans through nearly all the ports from Pensacola to Galveston. These products are grown mainly in the finished petroleum products, such as lubricating oils and greases, gasoline, and residual fuel oil, are also important exports. New Orleans, in turn, closely resembles Baton Rouge, but its principal imports are sugar, bananas, and coffee. However, New Orleans handles many more “general cargo” shipments and thus has a much wider variety of traffic than any other Sixth District port. Lake Charles, understandably, specializes in the export of rice but also exports considerable quantities of petroleum and chemical products. The South Atlantic ports— Savannah, Brunswick, Jack sonville, Palm Beach, Port Everglades, and Miami— are mainly raw materials ports. They export wood products, TABLE 2 Foreign W aterborne Commerce of Selected U. S. Ports, 1962 By Value ( M illio n s o f D o l la r s ) Port Sixth District Savannah Brunswick Jacksonville West Palm Beach Port Everglades Miami Key West Boca Grande Tampa Port St. Joe Panama City Pensacola Mobile Pascagoula Gulfport New Orleans Baton Rouge Lake Charles District Total New York Baltimore Los Angeles Houston Philadelphia Norfolk-Newpoit News San Francisco Bay Boston Chicago Galveston Seattle-Tacoma Charleston Portland Port Arthur-Beaumont Toledo Detroit Corpus Christi Duluth-Superior Cleveland Total Rank 18 17 2 12 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 19 20 Total Trade Percent of Total 228 13 157 13 59 112 1 3 142 1 23 13 248 65 28 1,727 338 114 3,285 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.3 0.1 6.5 1.3 0.4 12.4 10,116 1,233 1,223 1,222 1,108 1,080 1,046 582 422 408 318 291 285 2 60 210 190 184 174 123 26,52 6 38.1 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.1 3.9 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 100.0 Rank Exports 19 113 11 38 5 21 62 0.5 17 2 10 1 5 7 3 9 4 6 12 8 14 20 13 11 15 18 16 Percent of Total 0.8 0.1 0.3 Rank Imports 14 13 0.2 0.4 3 86 1 21 8 142 64 14 1,160 265 110 2 ,124 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1 8.1 1.9 0.8 14.8 5,308 581 413 865 366 810 543 88 230 380 190 112 2 04 254 178 85 127 168 39 14,316 37.1 4.1 2.9 60 2.6 5.7 3.8 0.6 1.6 2,.7 1.3 0.8 1.4 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.9 1.2 0.3 100.0 0.6 20 115 2 119 8 38 50 1 0.9 56 0.5 2 5 106 1 14 567 73 4 1,161 15 5 19 1 4 2 8 3 9 6 7 10 4,808 652 810 357 742 270 503 494 192 28 128 179 81 6 32 105 57 6 85 12,210 12 11 18 16 17 . 4 Percent of Total . 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.1 4.6 0.6 9.5 39.4 5.3 6.6 2.9 6.1 2.2 4.1 4.1 1.6 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.3 0 .9 0.5 0.1 0.7 100.0 Middle West, of course, and their increased traffic through the Gulf ports is attributable to greatly expanded shipments on the Mississippi River. To a considerable extent this represents a diversion of traffic from the former main route that ran by rail to Duluth-Superior, by lake ship to Buffalo, and thence to New York and other East Coast ports. The St. Lawrence Seaway has taken much of this traffic, but a great deal has gone to the Mississippi. Traffic diversion, however, is not the sole cause of the Gulf ports’ growth, for greater total exports, resulting from rising standards of living in Europe and Japan and from expanded “Food for Peace” shipments to the less developed countries, have also stimulated activity. Total domestic traffic on the Mississippi grew from 56 million tons in 1954 to 92 million tons in 1962, an increase of 64 percent. But wheat shipments increased 400 percent; corn shipments, 375 percent; and soybeans, nearly 500 percent. Increased river shipments have also put pressure on railroad freight rates, thus further en couraging export through Gulf ports. New grain elevators have gone up at many of the Gulf ports, partly as cause and partly as effect of the increased grain traffic. Another significant change has been the shift of the United States from a net exporter of the cruder petroleum products to a net importer. The Atlantic ports have for some time imported petroleum, but now even Baton Rouge, Lake Charles, and the Texas ports have turned from exporters to importers. In the meantime, petroleum refining has grown enormously in Louisiana, and these ports now export increasing amounts of the more highly refined petroleum products, such as gasoline and lubri cating oils and greases. Mobile has long imported bauxite, the ore from which aluminum is made, from Jamaica and the Guianas. More recently, Baton Rouge has outstripped Mobile. The ore coming into Mobile is shipped mainly to interior points after conversion to alumina, but such is not the case at Baton Rouge. Kaiser Aluminum Company has plants at Baton Rouge, at Gramercy, between there and New Or leans, and at Chalmette, just outside New Orleans. Among these plants, all the steps from handling the bauxite ore to producing aluminum ingots and shapes can be carried out. Other changes also have occurred. Foreign trade in fertilizer and its materials, once important at Jacksonville and Savannah, has decreased as domestic production has grown. The export of cotton manufactures has declined as the less developed countries have more and more pro vided stiff competition for U. S. products. And iron and steel scrap exports, mainly to Japan, have grown con siderably. Do the District Ports Have a Future? Small ports now handle a larger percentage of our total foreign trade than they ever have before, and this is true of District ports, as well as of those in other parts of the country. A rising proportion of a growing total means a greatly increased volume of traffic. But com petition is keen, and continued investment is necessary for continued growth. Docks, warehouses and other storage facilities, and, above all, mechanized equipment for cargo handling are required; but they are expensive. Few ports have found that they could rely on profitmotivated private enterprise to provide all of these facili ties. Private businesses may build specialized equipment, such as oil docks and storage tanks, for their own par ticular use. However, a port must have a great deal of general cargo traffic if it is to be profitable for a private business to provide much in the way of general cargo facilities; yet, without such facilities, the port will attract very little non-specialized traffic. The amount of traffic, in turn, has some bearing on the Army Corps of Engi neers’ recommendations to Congress as to whether chan nels should be dredged and other harbor improvements made. Hence, state governments have felt impelled to provide much of the needed investment themselves. They will probably have to continue to do so in the future if District ports are to continue to grow and to provide the stimulus to economic expansion that they potentially possess. L a w r e n c e F. M a n s f i e l d Debits to Demand Deposit Accounts Bank Announcements Officers fo r the F ir s t St a te B an k, I n s u r e d C o m m e r c ia l B a n k s in t h e S i x t h (In Thousands of Dollars) Wrens, Georgia, a Percent Change Year-to-date 7 Months July 1964 from 1964 from June July 1964 1963 1963 new ly organized n o n m em b er bank whose opening on July 6 was announced in the A u gu st M o n t h l y R e v ie w , are E. Fleming, President; T. W . Johnson, Jr., E xecutive Vice President and Cashier; and J. J. R abun and C. W. Kitchens, Sr., Vice Presidents. Capital is $ 50,000, a nd surplus and un div ide d profits, $ 10 0,000. On A ug u st 7, the F ort Og leth o rpe S t a t e B a n k , Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, a new ly organized n o n m em b e r bank, op en ed f o r business and began to rem it at par f o r checks d r a w n on it when received fr o m the F ederal R eserve Bank. Officers are J. N ola n Spear, President a nd Cashier; A . D . Phillips, Vice President; a nd D r e w E. Haskins, Jr., Chairm an o f the Board. Capital is $ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0 , and surplus an d undivided profits, $52,500. The conversion o f the Industrial Savings Bank, St. Petersburg, Florida, to a n o n m em b er bank under the title of S o u t h e r n B a n k of St . P eter sb u r g becam e effective on A ug u st 7. Officers are H arry R. Play fo rd, Chairman of the Board and President; Eugene H. Lallance, Executive Vice President and Cashier; an d Frederic T. Applegate, Vice President. Capital is $5 00,000, and surplus a nd un d ivided profits, $506,135. On A u g u st 18, the merger of The Nashville Bank and Trust C om p an y, Nashville, Tennessee, an d Third N ational Bank in N ashville becam e effective. The merger was ef fe c te d under the charter a n d title o f T Bank N in The F h ir d N a t io n a l a s h v il l e . ir s t N a t io n a l B ank of P e r r y , Perry, Georgia, a new ly organized m e m b e r bank, o p e n ed fo r business on A u gu st 2 0 an d began to rem it at par. Officers are J. M . Tolleson, Jr., Chairman o f the Board; J. A . Davis, Jr., President; James B. Stubbs, E xecutive Vice President; and A l P. Edge, Cashier. Capital is $1 50 ,0 00 , and surplus and oth er capital funds, $ 15 0,000, as rep orted by the C o m p troller o f Currency at the time the charter was granted. On D A u g u st ayto n a 21, the W e s t s id e B e a c h , D a y to n a Beach, A t l a n t ic B ank of Florida, a new ly o r ganized n o n m e m b e r bank, o pe n ed fo r business and began to rem it at par. Officers are G. S. Goshorn, President; D . A . Freer, E xecu tive Vice President; an d William I. D avison, Cashier. Capital is $ 45 0,000, a n d surplus and undivided profits, $1 80 ,0 00 . The R a i n s v i l l e B a n k , Rainsville, A la ba m a , a newly organized n o n m em b er bank, o p en ed fo r business on A u gu st 2 9 and began to rem it at par. Officers include G eorge H. Gibson, Chairman o f the B oa rd an d President; H erm an J. Buttram, Vice President; an d R o y L. Buford, Secretary. Capital is $1 00,000, and surplus an d undivided profits, $50,00 0. June 1964 July 1963 1,145,964 57,327 157,501r 399,311 233,287 77,566 1,075,818 54,446 128,414 363,606 248,513 71,222 +0 +6 —6 +2 +7 +6 +7 + 11 + 15 + 12 + 15 +10 +10 + 22 +7 +5 +9 396,628 1,270,601 1,641,130 510,737 160,818 390,827 1,170,386 1,573,560 474,761 163,404 372,928 1,081,040 1,542,655 440,883 136,991 + 1 +9 +4 +8 —2 +6 +18 +6 + 16 + 17 + 12 +16 +7 + 11 + 13 1,002,180 320,284 l,0 0 1 ,0 6 9 r 296,867 947,867 290,991 + 0 +8 + 6 + 10 +9 +9 74,663 3,579,718 172,292 191,907 171,109 238,369 68,770 3,269,880 185,324r 178,496 174,131 225,938 64,226 3,304,992 164,145 150,526 177,710 193,862 + 16 +8 +5 + 27 + 23 + 11 +7 +9 + 18 +6 + 13 378,979 93,294 96,662 1,933,342 365,680 84,635 89,812 1,984,221 375,533 85,938 88,320 1,829,650 +9 +9 —7 +8 —2 +6 +4 + 10 +8 —3 “h i +9 +9 +6 +5 +9 +5 + 11 478,164 426,784 420,402 + 12 + 14 + 13 403,474 352,476 1,006,906 +3 +2 + 10 + 12 +9 +9 +9 +8 + 14 July 1964 Carlton G. M atth ew s, Jr., Chairman o f the Board; James STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREASt 1,148,142 Birmingham . . . 60,488 Gadsden . . . . 148,003 Huntsville . . . 406,537 Mobile . . . . Montgomery . . . 250,437 81,840 Tuscaloosa . . . Ft. LauderdaleHollywood . Jacksonville . . . . Orlando . . . . Pensacola . . . TampaSt. Petersburg . W. Palm Beach Albany Atlanta Augusta* Columbus Macon Savannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baton Rouge Lafayette . Lake Charles New Orleans Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D is t r ic t Chattanooga . . . Knoxville . . . . Nashville . . . . 452,308 382,439 1,097,761 OTHER CENTERS Anniston . . . . Dothan . . . . S e lm a ......................... 53,902 46,470 32,601 51,892 44,883 34,018 51,864 40,245 28,998 + 4 +4 —4 +4 + 15 + 12 +7 +8 + 15 Bartow . . . . Bradenton . . . Brevard County . . Daytona Beach . . t-t. MversN. Ft. Myers . . Gainesville . . . Key West . . . Lakeland . . . . O c a la ......................... St. Augustine . . St. Petersburg . . Sarasota . . . . Tallahassee . . . Tampa . . . . Winter Haven . . 28,045 51,465 165,827 85,215 26,878 55.002 184', 599 71,411 22,913 48,193 138,047 77,334 + 4 —6 — 10 + 19 +22 +7 + 20 + 10 + 13 + 10 + 31 +8 55,662 64,097 21,885 97,080 49,256 17,023 256,258 88,270 94,599 514,895 49,879 58,675 65,237 20,201 78,039 47,439 17,184 242,334r 79,237 87,359 534,674 49,801 56,736 56,532 18,942 85,988 45,004 17,640 245,975 85,381 79,865 481,505 40,494 —5 —2 +8 + 24 + 4 —1 +6 + 11 +8 —4 +0 —2 + 13 + 16 + 13 +9 —3 +4 +3 + 18 +7 + 23 +7 + 14 + 11 +5 +6 +4 +9 +5 + 12 + 10 + 15 Athens . . . . Brunswick . . . Dalton . . . . Elberton . . . . Gainesville . . . Griffin . . . . LaGrange . . . Newnan . . . . R o m e ......................... Valdosta . . . . 59,706 41,338 66,907 12,913 70,378 25,817 18,762 26,856 60,535 46,722 55,336 39,567 69,341 13,353 58,265 25,033 19,890 23,810 63,488 41,008 51,812 39,841 55,027 8,890 59,997 23,985 16,544 22,045 56,621 38,882 + 8 +4 —4 —3 + 21 +3 —6 + 13 —5 + 14 + 15 + 4 + 22 + 45 + 17 + 8 + 13 + 22 +7 + 20 +11 +9 +22 +14 +7 +9 + 12 + 10 + 13 + 13 8,347 103,285 5,013 27,273 29,638 8,310 19,518 9,164 96,887 5,125 26,487 29,079 8,241 19,440 8,067 92,286 4,460 25,709 28,225 7,436 16,169 —9 +7 —2 +3 + 2 + 1 + 0 +3 + 12 + 12 +6 +5 + 12 + 21 + 8 + 11 +3 +8 + 19 + 16 +14 . . 76,800 42,636 34,026 58,218 31,409 76,972 41,593 31,303 55,045 29,482 75,322 39,712 30,499 55,294 28,475 + 0 +3 +9 +6 +7 + 2 + 7 + 12 +5 + 10 +7 + 6 +9 +3 + 12 . . . 45,850 29,867 23,430 46,514 30,913 24,448 39,944 28,097 19,258 —1 —3 —4 + 15 +6 + 22 + 11 + 12 + 12 Bristol . . . . Johnson City . . Kingsport . . . 59,063 62.060 118,163 55,% 2 61,501 111,129 61,695 55,137 104,404 +6 + 1 +6 —a, + 13 + 13 —3 + 13 + 14 22,622,177r 21,804,548 3,094,591r 2,869,298 6,926,009r 6,642,900 5,463,801 5,508,661 3,328,627 3,138,498 1,033,271 994,039 2,731,018r 2,696,012 + 5 + 1 +4 +8 —1 +8 +7 + 8 + 9 + 9 +9 -4-6 + 12 + 8 +9 +10 +9 +7 + 10 + 11 + 11 368,600,000 353,700,OOOr 320,700,000 +4 + 15 + 11 Abbeville . Alexandria Bunkie . Hammond New Iberia Plaquemine Thibodaux . . . . . . . . . Biloxi-Gulfport Hattiesburg . Laurel . . . Meridian . . . Natchez . . . PascagoulaMoss Point Vicksburg . Yazoo City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIXTH DISTRICT, Total 23,640,339 3,131,726 Alabamat . . . Floridat . . . . 7,230,753 Georgiaf . . . . 5,943,845 3,311,984 Louisiana-}-** . . 1,110,766 Mississippi-}-** . . 2,911,265 Tennesseet** . . U.S., 344 Cities . . ♦Richmond County only. fPartially estimated. 438,096 373 371 998,800r """Includes only banks in the Sixth District portion of the state. r Revised. •6 • S ix t h D is t r ic t S t a t is t ic s Seasonally Adjusted (All data are indexes, 1957-59 = Latest Month (1964) One Month Ago Two Months Ago One Year Ago S IX T H D IS T R IC T INCOME AMD SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Crops .................................................................... Livestock .............................................................. Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... Instalment Credit at Banks, *(M il. $) New Loans............................................................. R epaym ents....................................................... PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M an u factu rin g ........................................... Apparel ....................................................... C h em icals....................................................... Fabricated M e t a l s ..................................... Food .............................................................. Lbr., Wood Prod., Furn. & Fix. . . . Paper .............................................................. Primary M e t a ls ........................................... Textiles ....................................................... Transportation Equipment . . . . Nonmanufacturing........................................... Construction................................................. Farm Employment................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . Construction C o n tra cts*..................................... R e s id e n t ia l....................................................... All O t h e r .............................................................. Industrial Use of Electric Power . . . . Cotton Consumption** ..................................... Petrol. Prod, in Coastal La. and Miss.** FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank Loans* All B a n k s ............................................................. Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Member Bank Deposits* All B a n k s .............................................................. Leading C i t i e s ................................................. Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. Latest Month (1964) June 43,534 144 July 107 June 102 June June 110 147p Aug. 43,425r 143 126 146 108 131 44,192r 142 156 207 116 144 40,710 134 101 88 108 130 July July 185 183 179 173 179 164 169 164 July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July July June July July 116 115 136 112 120 106 94 110 104 96 126 117 107 85 2.9 40.7 174 173 174 126 113 175 116 114 136 110 119 104 93 109 103 95 124 116 108r 87 3.0 40.6r 147 159 136 125 106 171 115 113 136 110 119 104 93 109 103 95 123 116 107 82 3.0 40.7 146 147 146 123 104 168 113 111 133 107 113 104 93 108 102 95 119 113 103 88 3.7 40.6 122 140 106 117 105 166 July Aug. 177 166 177 165 173 165 153 144 July Aug. July 143 136 145 144 132 148r 141 136 152 131 124 141 Two Months Ago One Year Ago INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . Manufacturing P a y r o lls ............................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ..................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ......................... June July June July 8,241 146 113 123 8,116r 143r 113 142 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment..................................... M an u factu rin g ........................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................... Construction........................................... Farm Employment........................................... Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . July July July July July July July 118 113 120 130 88 2.2 40.2 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ..................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ............................... Bank D e b i t s * * ................................................. July July July 182 149 158 June July June July 6,369 127 107 118 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... July M anu factu rin g ................................................. July Nonmanufacturing........................................... July Construction................................................. July Farm Employment................................................. July Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) July Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . July 8; 292r 140 116 132 7,677 129 110 115 117 113 119 126r 81 2.1 40.3r 117 113 119 122 74 2.2 40.1 115 110 117 128 88 3.0 39.5 180 153 159 175 149 159 156 137 153 6,343r 126 118 118 6,527r 128 153 118 104 100 105 89 88 3.4 41.1 104 100 104 89 87 3.3 41.3 104 100 105 89 90 3.6 42.1 103 98 104 86 95 4.2 42.1 164 127 133 165 126 142 159 125 140 145 119 132 3,371r 152 199 105 L O U IS IA N A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (Mil. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... Member Bank D e p o sits*..................................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. July July July 6,100 121 106 110 M ISS IS S IP P I Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ..................................... Department Store S a l e s * * ......................... June July June July 5,964 129 119 109 5,935r 131 128 120 6,055r 132 136 117 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment..................................... M an u factu rin g ........................................... Nonmanufacturing..................................... Construction........................................... Farm Employment........................................... Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . July July July July July July July 109 105 111 101 83 3.1 40.1 108 104 110 103r 81 3.2 40.8 108 104 110 101 82 3.2 40.9 107 103 109 99 89 4.1 40.4 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ..................................... Member Bank D e p o s it s ............................... Bank D e b i t s * * ................................................. July July July 173 144 141 174 144 146r 170 142 150 153 133 136 5,622 124 108 105 INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) Manufacturing P a y r o lls ......................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ............................... Department Store S ales*/** . . . June July June July 3,301 157 136 93 3,347r 153 146 109 PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment............................... Manufacturing Nonmanufacturing..................................... C onstruction........................................... Farm Employment........................................... Insured Unemployment, (Percent of Cov. Emp Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . July July July July July July July 118 122 117 117 80 3.4 40.9 118 121 117 118 89 3.4 40.4r 118 121 116 118 74 3.7 40.4 117 119 116 118 75 4.6 40.4 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ..................................... Member Bank D e p o sits*............................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ........................................... July July July 190 157 147 195 159 153 194 156 156 169 143 139 June July June July 7,098 143 107 110 6,991r 144r 98 124 7,143r 142 123 125 Construction................................................. Farm Employment................................................. Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.] Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . July July July July July July July 116 119 115 140 86 3.4 40.8 116 119 115 142r 93 3.3 40.3r 116 118 115 146 89 3.5 40.5 113 115 111 130 94 4.6 41.1 FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s * ........................................... Member Bank D e p o sits*..................................... Bank D e b i t s * / * * ................................................. July July July 174 142 145 176 145 145r 174 142 155 154 135 141 FLO R ID A TEN N ESSEE INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . June 12,561 174 Manufacturing P a y r o lls ..................................... July 80 Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... June 167 Department Store S a l e s * * ............................... July INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) . . Manufacturing P a y r o ll s ..................................... Farm Cash R e c e ip t s ........................................... Department Store S a l e s * / * * ......................... PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... July M an u factu rin g ................................................. July Nonmanufacturing........................................... July Co n stru ction ..................................................July Farm Em ploym ent..................................................July Insured Unemployment, (Percentof Cov. Emp.) July Avg. Weekly Hrs. in Mfg., (Hrs.) . . . . July FINANCE AND BANKING Member Bank L o a n s ........................................... July Member Bank D e p o s it s ..................................... July Bank D e b i t s * * ....................................................... July 12,693r 170r 136 181 12,804r 169 178 173 11,611 162 79 158 126 131 126 97 94 2.6 41.6 125 127 125 100 87 2.7 41.l r 124 127 124 97 89 2.6 41.1 120 125 119 92 92 3.0 41.2 183 144 143 180 144 146r 177 142 153 153 129 138 *For Sixth District area only. Other totals for entire six states. **Daily average basis, Sources: Personal income estimated by this Bank; nonfarm, mfg. and nonmfg. emp., mfg. consumption, U. S. Bureau of Census; construction contracts, F. W. Dodge Corp.; petrol, receipts and farm emp., U.S.D.A. Other indexes based on data collected by this Bank. One Month Ago G E O R G IA A LA BA M A INCOME AND SPENDING Personal Income, (M il. $, Annual Rate) 100, unless indicated otherwise.) PRODUCTION AND EMPLOYMENT Nonfarm Employment........................................... M anu factu rin g ................................................. 3,109 144 114 91 6,591 135 104 107 r Revised. p Preliminary. payrolls and hours, and unemp., U. S. Dept, of Labor and cooperating state agencies; cotton prod., U. S. Bureau of Mines; industrial use of elec. power, Fed. Power Comm.; farm cash All indexes calculated by this Bank. •7 • D IS T R IC T .................. ................... ................... — . - Billion* of Dollart Annual Rat* ~Scat. Adj. B U S IN E S S C O N D IT IO N S T h e District economy continues to give a good account of itself. Employment in July showed the sharpest gains in some months; in sured unem ploym ent continued its fa ll; and contract volum e for future construction rem ained strong. Consumers ap p ear to be spending some of the ex tra income they received from the ta x cut, although they a re paying off old debts as w ell. Farm ers in most are a s are in good shape as the harvest season approaches, and bank loans showed further growth. ^ Nonfarm em ploym ent continued to grow in July after seasonal ad justment. Florida employment, which usually falls off at this time of year, de clined less than is normally expected and thus was a major help in sustaining employment for the District as a whole. This improvement in District employ ment was paralleled by a decline in the rate of insured unemployment, which fell below three percent for the first time since July 1953. The average work week in manufacturing also lengthened and contributed to fatter paychecks. Petroleum production was up in July, and steel production, although receding from the June level, is making a strong comeback in August. u* Farm ers' economic health is good but not com pletely unblemished. — .113 Cotton Consumption 104-»»V— A / A / An upsurge in farm harvests and firming prices for livestock and poultry products recently have been invigorating forces. At the same time, major farm operating costs remained on an even keel. Although crop acreage curtailment is holding total crop output below year-earlier levels, yields of field and forage crops are being sustained by favorable weather in most places. Hurricane Cleo, however, did strip some fruit from citrus trees along the east coast of Florida. ]S ]A ]S Department store sales slipped in Ju ly, but prelim inary figures for e a rly August show a sharp increase over the previous record set in June. Bank debits dipped further during July, and consumer credit outstanding at District banks expanded by the smallest amount since late 1963. The slow down in debt creation was attributable to a sharp upsurge in repayments, primarily of personal and auto loans. Personal income continued to advance during June and, for the first half of 1964, the District’s year-to-date gain ex ceeded the nation’s. ^ v* v* Construction contract volum e continues to be strong. Latest data indicate that nonresidential building was the most vigorous gainer in July, al though residential volume also expanded substantially over June. Large public and private projects, ranging from office and bank buildings to space vehicle launching facilities, boosted the region’s backlog of current construction. The District thus continues to support and expand the high level of construction in the U. S. as a whole. . v* v0 Measures of member bank activity showed m ixed trends during July. Loans continued to push upward, but a slowdown in the growth of con sumer and business loans caused the rate of gain to be the smallest in over a year. Investment proceeded at a slower-than-seasonal rate, as a substantial boost in municipal security holdings was more than offset by a continued selloff of U. S. Government securities. Total deposits fell slightly below the June record, as time deposits failed to show their usual mid-summer upswing and the U. S. Government sharply reduced its demand deposits at District banks. Preliminary data for August, however, indicate another upward swing in total deposits. Borrowings from F. R. Banks 1962 1963 *Se a s. adj. figure; not an index. 1964 N o t e : D a t a o n w h ic h s t a te m e n t s a r e b a s e d s e a s o n a l in flu e n ce s. h a v e b e e n a d ju s t e d w h e n e v e r p o s s ib le t o e lim in a t e
@FedFRASER