DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The incredible U.S.-to-China soybean nosedive, in one chart

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/incredible-u-s-china-soybean-nosedive-one-chart-161047194.html

President Trump’s trade war with China is having a major impact on agricultural industries, most notably on U.S. soybean exports.

According to Torsten Slok, chief international economist at Deutsche Bank, U.S. soybean exports to China are down 98 percent in 2018.

There was about $1.2 billion in soybean exports to China in January 2018 before the nosedive. Soybeans were the top U.S. agricultural export to China last year.

View photos
Image: Torsten Slok/Deutsche Bank Research
More
This is because trade tensions led China to stop buying U.S. soybeans. Instead, China has turned to Brazil. In September, Yahoo Finance reported that Brazilian soybean exports to China had already begun increasing and were expected to go higher.

The other big buyers of U.S. soybeans include Mexico, Spain, Argentina, the Netherlands and Egypt. But according to the American Farm Bureau Federation, “The pace of exports this year remains well below the level needed to meet USDA’s projection of 1.9 billion bushels.”

‘A dramatic decline in Chinese purchasers’

The U.S. has become increasingly reliant on China for trade, especially with soybeans. The crop is grown in numerous states across the country, including Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska. Soybean inventory is up in all of those states.

View photos
A field of soybeans is seen in front of a barn carrying a large Trump sign in rural Ashland, Neb. (Photo: Nati Harnik/AP)
More
The USDA is forecasting that soybean-planted acreage will drop by 6.6 million acres to 82.5 million in 2019. The American Farm Bureau Federation notes that “if realized, this would be the third-largest acreage decline of all time and the largest year-over-year decline in soybean plantings since … 2007.

“The decline in soybean acreage is anticipated given the slow pace of soybean exports, the dramatic decline in Chinese purchases, expectations for a nearly billion-bushel-carryout and projections for decade-low soybean marketing year average prices.”

Negotiations are still underway between the Trump administration and the Chinese government over trade issues. However, the U.S. government has emphasized that it is committed to getting things back to normal for soybean farmers. According to Bloomberg, “Any trade pact would also address the resumption of soybean sales specifically, since that was targeted in the trade war.”

_________

I’m sorry for the farmers. This sucks for them.

What’s worse, they will probably need another round of bailouts.

trade Wars are easy.

Trump got this

Trade wars are stupid and counterproductive.

Soybeans grown in the US are mostly grown by corporate farms and not local farmers. It won't even effect that many farmers. Just the big ones using illegal labor.

You do realize that soybeans are harvested by combines and not picked by hand like some vegetables, right?

You're sounding like a globalist!

If you are tired of fighting China on Trade and are willing to return to the good old days when they stole our technology and forced our businesses in China to have a 51 percent Chinese ownership to help them steal, just say so.

How would a new trade deal stop Chinese comapanies from stealing our technology? And you do realize when you import three times as much from any nation than they do from you there's going to be a trade deficit, right? Some people call that math.

I am 100% on the “put America first” train when it comes to war, but actual war, not trade wars. I took Ecom 101 in college.

This is why we have President Trump negotiating and not you.
You have to ask so you admit you have no clue.

Part of a new Trade deal is to end China's bad faith practices.

They can be negotiated without a trade war.

The government and private business are two separate things. Obviously you have no explanation.

The Government and Business are not separate in China.
The Government oversees all Business in China.

Well of course they do....

Trump, Xi agree to truce for now. Trump and Xi agree to Truce for now

Market and Soybeans rally

What choice did Trump have? I mean China refused to kiss his butt like he claimed they would. They weren't caving in to his demands. It was hurting business and starting to impact the stock market. So since he couldn't actually win like he claimed he would, a temporary truce, ie.... backing down.... was his only choice.

Failing and flailing comes to mind.

I don't know,it was hurting China more than us because we import way more from them then they do from us.

Long term this was needed. We set these deals up to help China emerge to a market economy. Well, they have emerged with our help. Now it's time to level the table.

We can no longer prop them up at our expense.

I think that's what SOME don't get. China needs us just as much. Look at all the stuff WE buy from them. The stuff we buy does - get this - create and or keep jobs in china. Without us buying their stuff, people lose jobs there, as well.

And guess what's going on with soybeans? Argentina is buy a lot more from the u.s., turning it into oil, and most importantly, feed, and selling OUR soybeans to China. China still has to feed their people, and their hogs, which in turn feed their people as well.

I was going to say something similar. China buys/bought or food more than anything else.

The average person in China is like the average person in the U.S.. They can deal with rising prices on other things, but food needs to stay steady or people get ticked.

Don't mess with the dinner table. Hungry people are angry people.

Ah, but here's the rub. America votes based on the economy for the most part. In China they have no choice in their government. Our politicians are far more reactionary and must bow to economic pressure. This isn't the case in China.

Waiting for the Chinese government and their leaders to bow to political pressure from inside their own country is not a realistic achievement.

Quite possibly true about the Chinese.

On the other hand, China relies on jobs exporting products in order for their people to.......have jobs.

They also rely on importing things like.............food?

If your citizens don't have jobs, and don't have food, things get bad, quickly.

All I'm saying is China needs us - for food and jobs.

We 'need' china for cheap products that they produce, that u.s. citizens buy because they are cheaper, which makes so many jobs head over seas, which hurts the u.s. job market by driving down wages.


Everyone in the u.s. wants higher paying jobs, so they can buy products made overseas by companies that don't have high paying jobs. Do you see any irony there?


Look, there are always 2 sides. A person would be wise to look at both sides.

doesn't really matter because in 50 years the need for humans to work jobs will just about be gone due to robotics eliminating 90% of the workforce and killing off the middle class. farming and manufacturing jobs will all be mostly automated. You will have the ruling rich class who own the robots with tech degrees and the servant poor class again with a high school education if your lucky and an expensive college cost where only the elite can go.

The products made will be too expensive for our own people to buy and sold only overseas. Aren't you so happy to be enslaved to your corporate overlords?

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this on arch.

Up until the 70's, the vast majority of China lived in abject poverty. Nobody there tried to overthrow the government. Nobody to this very day will try to overthrow their government. The government of China has very little to fear by a trade war for the short term.

They know the United states has elections. They know if the economy sours the balance of power will change and whoever takes over will return things to normal. To them it's a short term battle to win the long term war. If you have a permanent hold on your country knowing that in two years a bad economy will shift the balance of power for your opponent, making some long range deal that does not favor you would be a fools choice.

I actually agree with you on this. Even tho the country may have been poor and in poverty, the government and their officials typically are not, and are still well trained and funded. Look at NK. If the people tried to overthrow a government, it would be a massacre.

That's why I believe that a trade war, or tariffs depending on the terminology you prefer, would be a worthy strategy when dealing with a developed democracy. If a nation had to deal with the same political constraints that we did the playing field would be equal.

Waging an economic war with a nation like China doesn't account for the distinct advantage they hold in their power structure.

With China it's an all or nothing game. Trump is learning that.

America is addicted to Chinese goods. That's why we don't make anything any more. Half measures hurt your own people more than China. And a complete end to trade with China would be catastrophic for the US in the short term.

yup...China is the most prepared country on earth for trumps self imposed economic war. And trump isn’t to good with economic struggles. You can read all about it in chapter 13...all four of them.

We make plenty. We've doubled our manufacturing output since 30 years ago. Manufacturing is still our largest sector of the economy.

The difference is we are able to do this with two thirds of the workforce. Technology drove automation and streamlined headcounts. And now that China is raising its standard of living, companies are figuring out they can invest in American factories again with automated technologies.

Yet most every clothing manufacturer in the U.S. has moved their manufacturing to Chia.

Is that a pet?

China is out of control, killing us with trade, placing tariffs on our goods going into their country, then stealing our technology as their system forces our businesses to form a partnership with a Chinese businessman.

This has to stop. They are not a partner, they are an enemy.

We went to the World Trade Organization but they proved to be useless.

So Trump got our economy humming along and then went to trade war with China while we are strong.

It sucks but it has to be done in order to bring China into the world as a trading partner instead of a parasite.

All the other honest trading nations in the world agree with the need to do this but they are too small to take on China themselves.
Only America, with its giant economy can fight and win this war.

Yeah, it's continued humming for the last ten years.

Trump will never win a trade war with China. The reasons are obvious to anyone willing to look past the rhetoric.

Wow, now you are wrong in two threads.

Hey, Trump even had to lie about a false agreement with China last week. Once the stock market figured it out, it's tanking. We'll let time sort this one out. But if you actually read the thread and address the points it wouldn't fair well for you. But I know you'll never do that.

Despite Trump's tariffs, U.S. trade deficit at 10-year high

By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH December 7, 2018

The U.S. trade deficit surged to its highest level in a decade, even as President Donald Trump levied new tariffs on goods and services imported from overseas in an effort to narrow the gap.

The U.S. international trade deficit in goods and services increased to $55.5 billion in October from $54.6 billion in September, according to Census Bureau data. Exports, meanwhile, declined for a fourth time in five months.

Even as Mr. Trump pushes to narrow the deficit -- the difference between a country's exports and imports -- demand for foreign-made products is spurring companies to import more foreign-made goods to the U.S. But consumers are also paying a price, according to Tariffs Hurt the Heartland, a lobbying coalition of manufacturing, farming and technology groups. U.S. companies paid $6.2 billion in tariffs in October, including $2.8 billion in new tariffs on imports that have been imposed by the Trump administration, the group said on Friday.

"This data shows that tariffs have been an unmitigated failure in achieving any of the administration's goals," said Charles Boustany, spokesman for Tariffs Hurt the Heartland and a former Republican congressman, in a statement. "All that's happening is businesses and consumers are paying more, American exports subject to retaliation are rapidly declining, and the deficit the Administration cares so much about is ballooning."

As U.S. businesses import more products from overseas, they are subject to higher taxes on those imports, thanks to the new tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. A 10 percent tariff on $200 billion in Chinese goods took effect in September. Despite those new tariffs, the trade gap with China also widened in October, increasing by $700 million to $38.2 billion.

"We are now seeing the raw data behind the stories of tariff pain that are coming in from every corner of the country," Boustany said.

Heavy manufacturers are also raising prices, including United Technologies, which makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines, Otis elevators and Carrier air conditioners. Some companies have said they will cut jobs due to the impact of the tariffs, such as toolmaker Stanley Black & Decker, which on Thursday said it was making an unspecified number of layoffs due in part to tariffs and higher costs.

The trade imbalance isn't likely to narrow anytime soon, economists said.

"Moderating global momentum, the stronger dollar and protectionist trade policies will keep weighing on exports in the near-term, while sturdy domestic demand and limited spare capacity keep import growth healthy – further widening the deficit," Jake McRobie and Gregory Daco, economists at Oxford Economics, said in a report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trade-deficit-10-year-high-despite-trumps-trade-tariffs/

I have a trade deficit with Giant Eagle. I always send them money in exchange for goods. It's a bit silly to say I'm losing the transaction though, as I can't grow half of the produce I buy from them even if I wanted to due to climate, not to mention the shelf stable products that let me store goods long term.

The question I take away from that article is this: How much different would the trade deficit be without the tariffs?

The pretense of the article is simply "we have tariffs and the deficit still grew", but there is no balancing information outlining what expected growth/decline of the deficit would have been without the tariffs. It simply builds a one-sided argument without exploring the other side of the argument.

I really wish journalists stopped trying to go for angles and instead tried to provide the information the public needs to reach their own conclusions -- in a way that is NOT steering them to a desired conclusion.

Asking "what if" does very little when the administration is failing at its stated goal, and has for months now. You'd have a potential argument if we still had a growing deficit but it was decelerating. If anything, if you observe the MA trendline of the trade deficit graph in the PDF below, we are accelerating since the tariffs have been enacted.

The data is readily available here: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/ft900.pdf

It's not an argument, it's a question and a request for information and true analysis.

Are the tariffs making things better, worse, or having no appreciable impact?



Stating merely that there are tariffs and that the deficit still grew is not a complete picture nor is it a complete picture. If that is the sole basis of the report, then it is deliberately (or by way of dereliction) incomplete and uninformative.

What is the journalist angling you toward? You seem to be moving the goalposts of what you consider to be acceptable reporting. The article follows up on the claim by this administration that tariffs are going to help narrow the trade deficit. That's it. Can you provide concrete examples of the author pulling the wool over our eyes? What is the author not telling us? What is "unfair" here?

Claiming the author is being unfair or unbalanced without evidence is making a bad faith argument.