OK, so our POTUS was bragging about the EU verbal agreement on trade specifically in the following areas. What I am curious on is where or what ports do these items ship out of. Specifically for some of these items Trump mentioned they would ship by rail to the ports. None of this is in written agreement yet just verbal....
1. Soybeans........have we shipped soybeans via the East Coast to Europe are there facilities there or we these ship via Gulf Ports? He said huuuuge increase in volume in Soybeans. I can kind of believe that because Europe has an appetite for TOFU for some reason and that is made with Soybeans.
2. LNG Gas.........apparently we have an agreement in principle that Europe will drop tarriffs on LNG gas to make the price more competitive to Russian gas imports. Is this shipped via rail at all? Is it shipped via East Coast Ports or Gulf Ports?
3. Steel.....he mentioned Steel but was unspecific as to types and volumes. I would have thought Europe was flooded with Steel at this point so my guess is it is a special alloy of steel? Is this shipped via East Coast Ports?
4. Fuel derivatives........very vague mention of what this was about, Ethenol maybe?
What the line of thinking is on China is China is struggling to make up for the loss of Soybean purchases but is having issues because Brazil cannot produce in volumes to replace the United States so the feeling is that they will come to the table once they work their surplus stocks of soybeans down (I'll believe it when I see that) or face shortages.
As far as I understood German media, nothing is fixed yet. There is an agreement to talk.
Soybeans: No fixed tonnage yet
LNG gas: Nothing fixed yet. Europe doesn't have enough LNG terminals to receive high volumes I think. I doubt American LNG will get competetive enough without tarrifs.
Steel, aluminum: Both sides will check tarriffs (USA) and counter-tarrifs (EU)
It shall get discussed how tarrifs on industrial commodities can be abolished.
More details were not disclosed yet.
The problem with agricultural goods in Europe is that there is no market for genetically modified goods. The consumers don't want it. Meat from animals fed with genetically modified crops need to be labelled as such. Which is a disadvantage on the market.
CMStPnPWhat the line of thinking is on China is China is struggling to make up for the loss of Soybean purchases but is having issues because Brazil cannot produce in volumes to replace the United States so the feeling is that they will come to the table once they work their surplus stocks of soybeans down (I'll believe it when I see that) or face shortages.
I agree with your last sentence. Brazil produces almost as much soybeans as the USA. So there are alternatives. And tarrifs on soybeans don't mean China won't buy them in the USA. American farmers need to make competetive prices including tarrifs and that usually means they have to lower their prices. There is a reason that the Federal Government promised up to $12 billion financial aids for farmers.Regards, Volker
And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnP2. LNG Gas.........apparently we have an agreement in principle that Europe will drop tarriffs on LNG gas to make the price more competitive to Russian gas imports. Is this shipped via rail at all? Is it shipped via East Coast Ports or Gulf Ports?
Natural Gas would travel to the port as a gas in a pipeline in the usual way, and converted to liquid for loading on the LNG tanker. The facility I heard about is in Louisiana. It is not likely to underbid gas piped from Russia, at least to central Europe. Also, presently the EU has no tarrif on US LNG, its just not competative.
VOLKER LANDWEHRThe problem with agricultural goods in Europe is that there is no market for genetically modified goods. The consumers don't want it. Meat from animals fed with genetically modified crops need to be labelled as such. Which is a disadvantage on the market.
ha-ha-ha, you do know that whole labeling scheme is not 100% coverage right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3461226/Most-supermarket-meat-tainted-GM-UK-animals-routinely-given-modified-feed-shoppers-told.html
Other EU countries do the same as the UK. So while I do not care about that whole scheme, I certainly would not bet my health on it. Oh wait the EU already determined there is no risk to human health.......they only label for political reasons.
Oh well, regardless. I could care less about the whole beef fight.
When I posted yesterday late at night I did it from memory. That is not always the best idea.
The labeling is required for processed soybeans as food not meat from genetically modified soybean fed animals.
The problems are a bit different. In the USA and Brazil many different types of genetically modified soybeans are grown. Only a part of these types is certified for import into the EU.
Sorry for the confusion.
CMStPnP Oh wait the EU already determined there is no risk to human health.......they only label for political reasons.
Most consumers in the EU don't like genetically modified food for e.g. health or environmental reasons. If it is a realistic or only a felt risk doesn't matter as long as there is no proof that it isn't harmful. To give consumers a chance to choose labeling was introduced.
That might sound weird for you but there are different cultures. Simplified, in the EU you have to proof that your product is not harmful before being allowed to sell it. As I understand in the USA you can sell everything but face extraordinary high penalties if it turns out to be harmful.
When you can't avoid genetically modified soybean anymore as about 80% already is you need other measures, e.g. labeling.
It might be unlikely that genetically modified food is unhealthy but there is no proof. The time seems still too short to rule out long term effects. All I read suggest that genetically modified plants are a risk for the environment that one should not underestimate.
That is the opinion of most consumers in the EU. YMMV.Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHRAll I read suggest that genetically modified plants are a risk for the environment that one should not underestimate.
What I read is they eliminate diversity in favor of a dominate strain of say soybeans for example. So you end up with only one strain of soybean that is grown and the rest are extinct or very hard to find. So when a disease or pest arises that consumes the GM soybean........no natural defense against it. In the past the diversity of strains was a natural defense in that the disease or pest would not find an appetite for all available strains............thats the only harmful effect I have read about GM crops, no diversity and if you attempt to diversity the GM pollen slowly converts the non-GM crops to GM crops.
The EU uses GM crops I read in Spain it uses GM Corn to fight the Bow-weavil and then they state there are no other GM crops in the EU.........which I find really hard to believe given the internet and the abilty to self import seeds.
Another "feature" of some GMO seeds is apparently that the plants that grow from them will not produce usable seeds.
So, guess where you have to get your seeds from...
This is why we have to watch very carefully who we give the keys to the seed vaults to...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
BaltACD And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts.
BaltACDAnd American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts.
Makes it kinda hard to understand why the Cheeto Musilini's approval rating is so high.
zardoz BaltACD And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts. BaltACD And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts. Makes it kinda hard to understand why the Cheeto Musilini's approval rating is so high.
And the EU is already working on reducing/eliminating tariffs, so the tariff wars are already having the positive effect that was intended.
Some just can't accept that the Best Candidate WON the Election, and that Donny IS the Best President that we have had since Reagan.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
CMStPnPThe EU uses GM crops I read in Spain it uses GM Corn to fight the Bow-weavil and then they state there are no other GM crops in the EU.........which I find really hard to believe given the internet and the abilty to self import seeds.
The EU legislation is complicated. In the early 2000s the EU allowed growing GM crops under special conditions. To make sure these conditions are met the GM seeds need an EU certification on base of individual risk assessments. So not all known GM crops are allowed in the EU.
In 2015 the EU allowed its member states to individually ban GOM. It was possible before on base of a safeguard clause but only with new scientific findings. Now it can be a political decision.
Spain grows mainly BT-corn which produces its own insecticide.
I'm not sure if self-import is easy. The GM crops are patented and mostly owned by large companies like Monsanto and Bayer. They might not be pleased if their customer gets caught and they get penalized by the EU.
A farmer growing GM crops is liable for all damages caused by decontimination on neighboring non GM crop fields in the EU. Not naturally an incentive to grow GM crops.
I'm sure I didn't get everything right but it shows roughly the legal frame.Regards, Volker
challenger3980And the EU is already working on reducing/eliminating tariffs, so the tariff wars are already having the positive effect that was intended.
What are you dreaming of?
Before the current president there were already negotiations about a trade agreement between USA and the EU, TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which the Potus cancelled. So tarrif modifications are not an achievement of the Potus.
He wanted to negotiate trade agreements with single EU member states which he now learned doesn't work. He has to negotiate with the EU.
As far as I learned there are no agreements exceeding the promise for further talks and negotiations. There are no positive effects yet.
Think about, why Mr. Trump backed out of a pending trade war with the EU? And with further tarrif against the EU it would have started.
He realized that the trade war with China costs the Farmers alone billions of dollars. So where is the positive effect there?
Your last sentence I better don't comment as a foreigner.Regards, Volker
challenger3980 zardoz BaltACD And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts. BaltACD And American taxpayers take both hits in the shorts. Makes it kinda hard to understand why the Cheeto Musilini's approval rating is so high. And the EU is already working on reducing/eliminating tariffs, so the tariff wars are already having the positive effect that was intended. Some just can't accept that the Best Candidate WON the Election, and that Donny IS the Best President that we have had since Reagan. Doug
And the American Taxpayers again take it in the shorts! DJT hasn't released his last 12 years of tax returns because they will show he hasn't paid a dime. Only the dumb pays taxes, and yes, I am dumb - I pay taxes - I am not rich enough for Tax Shelters to hide what I earned as a mere worker and now as RRB retiree.
BaltACDAnd the American Taxpayers again take it in the shorts! DJT hasn't released his last 12 years of tax returns because they will show he hasn't paid a dime. Only the dumb pays taxes, and yes, I am dumb - I pay taxes - I am not rich enough for Tax Shelters to hide what I earned as a mere worker and now as RRB retiree.
Not completely true, on the tax return leaked to cable network MSDNC, he paid 38 million on income of 150 million to the Feds. Additionally, what you say about being rich enough is also not true. There are tax shelters and dodges for every single income group........thats part of the issue with our tax system.
You had a specific tax shelter available to you between age 50 and 60, called the Roth IRA catch-up contribution, you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxes which is another tax shelter, you can charge a portion of capital losses on the sale of stock investments for up to 7 years from when incurred..........list goes on and on.
If you run a large private company that is in a competitive market, it's rather dumb to make your financial statements public. Your competition is going to go over them with a fine tooth comb and it is going to hit you in your wallet at some point as your competition learns what your business practices are that might give you a marketplace advantage on cost.
VOLKER LANDWEHRBefore the current president there were already negotiations about a trade agreement between USA and the EU, TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) which the Potus cancelled. So tarrif modifications are not an achievement of the Potus.
How long have those negotiations been going on with the EU and what results have they brought to the table in the last 25 years? You can state negotiations have been ongoing but if they bear no fruit over time to the United States, the negotiations are not relevant. Just like the argument to raise defense contributions to NATO to 2 percent. That has been a United States argument on the table since the late 1970's. Has it born any fruit or do the Europeans let contributions fall below acceptable levels on a frequent basis when they feel nobody is looking? It's not just Trump that is PO'd about it, the taxpayers are PO'd about it. Eventually your not going to have an alliance if it continues.
This is turned into a pointless political argument with a paucity of facts on one side.
The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 was the last outrage inflicted by the Republican protectionists. Rates on dutiable imports rose to their highest levels in over 100 years. Increases of 50 percent were common and some rates went up 100 percent. Table 1 indicates how much tariffs in creased during the 1920s as a result of both the Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley tariffs. A recent analysis estimates that the Smoot-Hawley tariff, on average, doubled the tariffs over those in the Underwood Act.
Source: League of Nations
Economists and historians continue to debate how important the Smoot-Hawley tariff was in causing the Great Depression.11 Whatever the degree, the effect certainly was adverse and the tariff was certainly bad policy. As Figure 2 indicates, world trade virtually collapsed following passage of the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Thus, if that tariff was not the single cause of the Great Depression, it certainly made a bad situation worse.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Containerized shipping and the big push toward free trade from the US following WWII changed everything.
Containerized shipping is something like 80x cheaper than the break-bulk shipping that preceded it. Add that to the multilateral trade deals and the WTO and general pushing down of tariffs and protectionism have led to very cheap and complicated global supply chains.
The days when coal, ore and trees went in the back door and an automobile came out the front door (River Rouge, for example) are long gone. Instead the raw materials come from all over the world, run through factories all over the place that produce the many levels of intermediate levels of material that go into a finished good.
Take a car alternator. Where did the copper ore come from? Who smelted it? Who drew the wire? Where did the steel for the core come from? Who rolled it? Who stamped it? Who built the core up? Where did the diode bridge come from? Who cast the housing? Who machined it? Where did the steel for the shaft come from....etc. etc.
Constrained trade is a cancer on the human condition. It causes pain for many. Free trade is the cure. The end result of all of this is more stuff gets made at less cost. That it changes things causes pain for some is a side effect. You don't fix the side effect of cancer treatment by eliminating the cure! You treat the side effect.
The current trade war is a great disrupter of exiting, well functioning supply chains. Only a fool would continue down this path.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
charlie hebdo This is turned into a pointless political argument with a paucity of facts on one side.
My favorite is "the world is taking advantage of the US". A few anecdotes, at best, are trotted out. There are no facts to back up this generalization.
The current tarrif system was agreed upon by the WTO member states including the USA in 1998. All countries had products they wanted protected by tarrifs. The most prominent example are cars. The EU tarrif for cars is 10%, the USA's tarrif is 2.5%. On the other hand the US tarrif on light trucks and SUVs is 25%.
CMStPnPHow long have those negotiations been going on with the EU and what results have they brought to the table in the last 25 years?
It seems that all, including the USA could live with this tarrif system into the 2010s. Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) started in June 2013. In 2016 both countries offered to eliminate 90% of the tarrifs under conditions.
CMStPnP Just like the argument to raise defense contributions to NATO to 2 percent. That has been a United States argument on the table since the late 1970's.
The 2% of GDP were a requirement for new NATO members in 2001. The old members should try to reach this mark for fairness reason.
In 2014 the NATO summit decided "that the NATO member states should aim to reach the guideline of 2% within the next 10 years". That would be 2024.
This guidline is not legally binding as it was not implemented in the NATO treaty. Nevertheless the EU counties will rise their defence expenditures where necessary. Up to 2%? At least for Germany 1.5% to 1./% is more likely. The taxpayers see better uses for their money, e.g. handling a crisis before they evolve into wars.
CMStPnP It's not just Trump that is PO'd about it, the taxpayers are PO'd about it.
I think American taxpayers won't benefit from the the 2% in other countries. The USA won't reduce their defense expenditures, I think. They are partly a large subsidy for non-competetive industries, e.g. ship yards.Regards, Volker
BaltACDDJT hasn't released his last 12 years of tax returns because they will show he hasn't paid a dime. Only the dumb pays taxes........
According to CNN, Nixon was the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns. So, a presidential candidate releasing his or her tax returns is a relatively recent outcome.
Unless a candidate for political office has been indicted for tax fraud, she should not be required to release her tax returns. Most people don't understand the tax code; especially as it applies to complex returns. Releasing a candidate’s tax returns generates more confusion than clarity.
In 2016, according to the IRS, 16.8 percent of Americans filing a federal income tax return - 150.5 million - had Adjusted Gross Income of more than $100,00. They paid 80.2 percent of the personal federal income taxes in 2016.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
As an undergraduate and graduate student I drank the Cool Aide from numerous economics professors about the virtues of free or fair trade. I still lean that way.
But the U.S. has a serious trade imbalance. Last year it was in the neighborhood of $620 billion. And numbers like these have been stacking up for years. So, although it is a bit off topic, what can the railroads do to help fix the problem?
challenger3980the Best Candidate WON the Election, and that Donny IS the Best President that we have had since Reagan.
I suppose it depends on what criteria you use to define "best".
This is coming from a trucking company employee. We now for our drivers going into and out of Chicago on a regular basis for their own personal safety and protection have started offering Kevlar vests for any driver that wants one. Our local grocery warehouse that serves Chicago has gone even further for Chicago they are equipping their trucks with Kevlar in the body panels and polycarbonate windshields that can stop most handgun rounds. Just who where was the Last President the Southside of Chicago.
Sigh.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
PJS1But the U.S. has a serious trade imbalance. Last year it was in the neighborhood of $620 billion.
You shouldn't just check trade but take services and returned profit into account. I mean profits made by American companies abroad and sent home. If you consider these, trade and services are balanced between USA and EU according to American statistics.
A trade impalance is seldom the fault of the other country alone. It helps to look at the own shortcomings.
When wages increase faster than labor productivity competetivness gets lost over time. Companies start looking for cheaper labor. From union states to non-union states (GE and EMD locomotives) or to low wage countries (model railroading industry)Regards, Volker
VOLKER LANDWEHR PJS1 But the U.S. has a serious trade imbalance. Last year it was in the neighborhood of $620 billion. You shouldn't just check trade but take services and returned profit into account.
You shouldn't just check trade but take services and returned profit into account.
The $620 billion figure was a ballpark figure. The actual numbers, as published by the BEA, show similar outcomes. The deficit is the net of goods and services.
In 2016 the U.S. combined trade deficit was a tad over $502 billion, consisting of a goods deficit of $751 offset by a services surplus of $249 billion. In 2017 the combined deficit was $552 billion, consisting of a goods deficit of $808 billion offset by a services surplus of $256 billion.
American companies have not been returning overseas profits because of the adverse tax consequences.
What constitutes a service export is murky. For example, the software for Apple's I phones is designed mostly in the U.S., but it is not counted as part of service exports.
zardoz challenger3980 the Best Candidate WON the Election, and that Donny IS the Best President that we have had since Reagan. I suppose it depends on what criteria you use to define "best".
challenger3980 the Best Candidate WON the Election, and that Donny IS the Best President that we have had since Reagan.
When it comes to evaluating Presidents, it is a matter of Opinion, there is no mathematical formula for doing so.
It may be YOUR OPINION that Trump wasn't the Best candidate in the 2016 Election, It is MY OPINION, that he was the Best Candidate that we had to choose from, and I shudder to think of the results, if Hillary had won.
In MY OPINION, Obama was the Worst President since Nixon.
We Each have our Own Opinions, if the Trump/America Haters want to throw unrelated comments in, I will reply, I'm not going to let such Bull Schitt go unanswered. If you want to make comments that ultimately get threads Locked/Deleted, that is your choice, it has happened before, and I Imagine that it will happen again. I don't come here and make unrelated political comments, but I will respond to those that do, Locked/deleted threads are on you, not me.
BTW, Trump WON by Election, accept it/get over it.
challenger3980I don't come here and make unrelated political comments,
But you kind of did...
Anyhow, you did your percieved duty defending President Trump. Have a diet coke to celebrate.
America would lose the election - no matter who got elected.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.