TO COMMENT CLICK HERE
Payback
Dedicated to the Fools, Racists, and Ignorant
People who vote for the GOP and trump or don't vote because they claim it is not important
november 30, 2018
400 years and they have learned nothing
8 disturbing trends that reveal the South’s battered psyche
From Salon: Across red-state America, especially in the Deep South, the latest statistics show that the cycle of poverty, in its many manifestations, is unchanged and holding firm. Why is this? It’s easy to say this is how Republicans like to run states—cutting budgets, not raising the minimum wage, opposing labor unions. They let the poor and working class stew in their hardscrabble juices. Meanwhile, they distract voters by accusing liberals of waging war on the few sources of personal power in Southerners’ difficult lives: their religious beliefs and owning guns. But go back several decades when segregationist Democrats ruled; for the most part, they weren’t very different from today’s Republicans.
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending sy state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
So what is it that perpetuates decades of poverty in the Deep South? What follows are eight bundles of statistics tracking this latest cycle of poverty. Could it be that people who historically have been treated badly, who have little money in their pockets but look to the sky and pray, expect less from others—including the public and private sector? Does that explain why red-staters cling to God, gun ownership and a “leave-me-alone” ferocity?
They expect politicians to defend their values and their pride and little more?
What’s going on here isn’t entirely political, even if it is used by red-state Republicans in their personal drive for power and influence. Look at what the following statistics reveal about red-staters trapped in deep cycles of poverty. What is the thread that connects lousy governance, bad health, evangelical religion and firearms fervor?
1. Southern states have the most poor people.
2. Deep South states have no minimum wage.
3. Deep South has lowest economic mobility.
4. South has lowest per capita spending sy state government.
5. Forget about decent preventative healthcare.
6. One result: people self-medicate in response.
7. Forget the lottery, just pray to Jesus.
8. And hold onto that gun!
payback headlines - how you are screwed!!
*Laid-off GM worker taking care of 84-year-old mother rips Trump for lying to them as their jobs get stripped away(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Penny for your corn? Stingy trade-war aid irks US farmers
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump-loving Ohio autoworkers feel betrayed after GM plant closes: ‘We’ve seen nothing but job losses’
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*WHITE HOUSE ADMITS TRUMP CLIMATE POLICIES WILL COST AMERICANS $500 BILLION A YEAR
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘Never seen things this bad’: Soy farmers fume as their crops rot in storage thanks to Trump’s trade wars
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump’s $12 billion bailout of farmers hurt by his trade wars has been a massive bust: NYT
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*TRUMP ADMINISTRATION PLOTS COSTLY PRIVATE-CARE EXPANSION FOR VETERANS
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*'It hasn't benefited us a dime': Georgia steelworkers' verdict on Trump tariffs
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*‘I know who the losers are — us’: Farmers in Trump country cry out as trade war drags into harvest time
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*This is how much more expensive health care premiums will be in 2019 thanks to Trump
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*US firms face tariff-fueled price hikes, widespread labor shortages: Fed
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*Trump trade war delivers farm boom in Brazil, gloom in Iowa
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*China slashes U.S. LPG imports amid trade war
(ARTICLE BELOW)
*One map shows why Trump's trade war with China could be a disaster for average Americans(ARTICLE BELOW)
PAYBACK FUNNIES(at the end)
GREEN PARTY FucK YOU! - THIS IS WHAT TRUMP HAS WROUGHT...SAME AS HILLARY
Cattledog - demo. underground
|
29 rules have been overturned
Flood building standards Proposed ban on a potentially harmful pesticide Freeze on new coal leases on public lands Methane reporting requirement Anti-dumping rule for coal companies Decision on Keystone XL pipeline Decision on Dakota Access pipeline Third-party settlement funds Offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic Ban on seismic air gun testing in the Atlantic Northern Bering Sea climate resilience plan Royalty regulations for oil, gas and coal Inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews Permit-issuing process for new infrastructure projects Green Climate Fund contributions Mining restrictions in Bristol Bay, Alaska Endangered species listings Hunting ban on wolves and grizzly bears in Alaska Protections for whales and sea turtles Reusable water bottles rule for national parks National parks climate order Environmental mitigation for federal projects Calculation for “social cost” of carbon Planning rule for public lands Copper filter cake listing as hazardous waste Mine cleanup rule Sewage treatment pollution regulations Ban on use of lead ammunition on federal lands Restrictions on fishing |
24 rollbacks are in progress
Clean Power Plan Paris climate agreement Wetland and tributary protections Car and truck fuel-efficiency standards Status of 10 national monuments Status of 12 marine areas Limits on toxic discharge from power plants Coal ash discharge regulations Emissions standards for new, modified and reconstructed power plants Emissions rules for power plant start-up and shutdown Sage grouse habitat protections Fracking regulations on public lands Regulations on oil and gas drilling in some national parks Oil rig safety regulations Regulations for offshore oil and gas exploration by floating vessels Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge Hunting method regulations in Alaska Requirement for tracking emissions on federal highways Emissions standards for trailers and glider kits Limits on methane emissions on public lands Permitting process for air-polluting plants Offshore oil and gas leasing Use of birds in subsistence handicrafts Coal dust rule |
7 rollbacks are in limbo
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Methane emission limits at new oil and gas wells
Limits on landfill emissions
Mercury emission limits for power plants
Hazardous chemical facility regulations
Groundwater protections for uranium mines
Efficiency standards for federal buildings
Rule helping consumers buy fuel-efficient tires
Source:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump-environment-rules-reversed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
The True Cost of Voodoo Economics
The Reagan-Bush Debt is how much of the national debt of the United States is attributable to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and
the Republican fiscal policy of Borrow-And-Spend.
As of Saturday, November 03, 2018 at 7:29:03AM CT,
The Current ReaganBush Debt is:
$13,558,243,957,285.30
which means that in a total of 20 years,
these three presidents have led to the creation of
91.74%
of the entire national debt
in only 8.2645% of the 242 years of the existence of the United States of America.
@ReaganBushDebt.org
Here are the 66 Programs Trump eliminates in his budget - Soph0571 Demo Underground
Laid-off GM worker taking care of 84-year-old mother rips Trump for lying to them as their jobs get stripped away
Tom Boggioni - raw story
30 NOV 2018 AT 11:42 ET
A 55-year-old Ohio woman who has worked for General Motors for over two decades had nothing good to say about President Donald Trump who had appeared at her plant last summer and told workers to hold onto their homes and not worry about losing their jobs.
Speaking with Vox reporter Alexia Fernández Campbell, GM Lordstown plant employee Nanette Senters — who works assembling car doors — sobbed while she explained how management broke the news about the job losses, revealing that employees burst into tears.
“At 9:30 in the morning on Monday, we were all called into the break room, and they put on a video saying that the plant would be shuttered in March 2019,” Senters recalled adding that the person in the video was a nameless “GM bigwig.”
“There was a loud gasp. People started crying,” she continued. “All day long, people were crying. Then we just started getting angrier and angrier. We’ve done so much for this company. This is such an inhumane way to treat people.”
Asked whom she blamed, Senters focused on President Trump for multiple reasons.
“There’s a lot of blame to go around. I blame a lot of it on our president. I think it all started when Trump repealed the [Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard],” she explained. “The CAFE standard meant that you could produce small cars that are energy-efficient and that would kind of balance out the building of big trucks and gas guzzlers.”
“Then there’s his trade wars and his unfinished trade deals, which are hurting the entire country. Ford, Chrysler, Honeywell — they are all outsourcing good union jobs. The jobs being created are not good-paying jobs. They are $12-an-hour jobs,” she continued adding that she will be losing a $30 an hour job.
She went on to point out, “We were told that we might be able to transfer to another job, that there will be 3,000 new GM jobs. But that means 11,000 of us will be left out in the cold.”
Asked if she had any hope Trump could save her job, Senters scoffed at the notion, saying he had made big promises before.
“All of the president’s rhetoric has divided the workforce horribly. I was here when Trump had a rally here last summer. He said, don’t sell your house, do not worry about that. I am going to bring jobs back,” she recalled. “I didn’t believe him. From day one, I could see what he was — the way he managed to give people false hope. A lot of people are still hoping he will save them now. It’s disturbing.”
Confronted with jobs that only pay about $12 an hour, Senters explained that her situation is dire and she may have to move.
“I am going to try to transfer to another plant. If that doesn’t work out, I will go back to school. I am a single woman, and if I have to move to Indiana or something, it will be hard to take care of my 84-year-old mother,” she explained, before condemning Trump again.
“Trump is not willing to put his money where his mouth is. And so many of my co-workers, around half of them, are still pinning all their hopes on Trump. I hope I’m wrong. I hope he does do something about the thousands of jobs companies are still sending abroad. But he hasn’t done anything about Carrier, Honeywell, or Harley-Davidson,” she explained.
“Basically, since he’s been in office, it has been an assault on good-paying jobs. What he’s doing is not translating into anything good for middle-class America,” Senters concluded.
You can read the whole interview here.
Speaking with Vox reporter Alexia Fernández Campbell, GM Lordstown plant employee Nanette Senters — who works assembling car doors — sobbed while she explained how management broke the news about the job losses, revealing that employees burst into tears.
“At 9:30 in the morning on Monday, we were all called into the break room, and they put on a video saying that the plant would be shuttered in March 2019,” Senters recalled adding that the person in the video was a nameless “GM bigwig.”
“There was a loud gasp. People started crying,” she continued. “All day long, people were crying. Then we just started getting angrier and angrier. We’ve done so much for this company. This is such an inhumane way to treat people.”
Asked whom she blamed, Senters focused on President Trump for multiple reasons.
“There’s a lot of blame to go around. I blame a lot of it on our president. I think it all started when Trump repealed the [Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard],” she explained. “The CAFE standard meant that you could produce small cars that are energy-efficient and that would kind of balance out the building of big trucks and gas guzzlers.”
“Then there’s his trade wars and his unfinished trade deals, which are hurting the entire country. Ford, Chrysler, Honeywell — they are all outsourcing good union jobs. The jobs being created are not good-paying jobs. They are $12-an-hour jobs,” she continued adding that she will be losing a $30 an hour job.
She went on to point out, “We were told that we might be able to transfer to another job, that there will be 3,000 new GM jobs. But that means 11,000 of us will be left out in the cold.”
Asked if she had any hope Trump could save her job, Senters scoffed at the notion, saying he had made big promises before.
“All of the president’s rhetoric has divided the workforce horribly. I was here when Trump had a rally here last summer. He said, don’t sell your house, do not worry about that. I am going to bring jobs back,” she recalled. “I didn’t believe him. From day one, I could see what he was — the way he managed to give people false hope. A lot of people are still hoping he will save them now. It’s disturbing.”
Confronted with jobs that only pay about $12 an hour, Senters explained that her situation is dire and she may have to move.
“I am going to try to transfer to another plant. If that doesn’t work out, I will go back to school. I am a single woman, and if I have to move to Indiana or something, it will be hard to take care of my 84-year-old mother,” she explained, before condemning Trump again.
“Trump is not willing to put his money where his mouth is. And so many of my co-workers, around half of them, are still pinning all their hopes on Trump. I hope I’m wrong. I hope he does do something about the thousands of jobs companies are still sending abroad. But he hasn’t done anything about Carrier, Honeywell, or Harley-Davidson,” she explained.
“Basically, since he’s been in office, it has been an assault on good-paying jobs. What he’s doing is not translating into anything good for middle-class America,” Senters concluded.
You can read the whole interview here.
Penny for your corn? Stingy trade-war aid irks US farmers
Reuters - raw story
28 NOV 2018 AT 09:53 ET
Iowa corn farmer Bob Hemesath jokes that the government check he expects as compensation for his trade-war losses will soon allow him to splurge on upscale coffee in town instead of his usual burnt gas-station brew.
Rob Sharkey, an Illinois farmer, hopes his corn trade aid check will be big enough for that margarita machine he and his wife have been eyeing – but they doubt they’ll be any left over for the booze.
Federal economists have calculated that the nation’s losses in corn – its largest crop by harvest and export volume – amount to just a penny per bushel, a pittance farmers call absurd. That’s in stark contrast to the substantial $1.65 per bushel the government will pay for lost sales of soybeans, the crop hardest hit by retaliatory Chinese tariffs in a trade war launched by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Both subsidies only cover half the bushels harvested this fall, though the government could soon decide to apply more aid money to this season.
“You have to wonder why Washington even bothered” with the corn subsidy, said Sharkey, 43, a fifth-generation farmer. “The soybean payment? That’s real money that can help us.”
Even Sonny Perdue, Trump’s agriculture chief, fails to understand the pennies in trade aid. The U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary – a former farmer himself – recently told corn growers gathered in Champaign, Illinois, that the measly offering left him baffled and asking his agency’s economists how they figured the number.
“We have got $1.65 on beans and a penny on corn? That doesn’t make any sense’,” he said. “If I were picking numbers, I’d have picked a different one.”
But Perdue said the department was obligated to stick with the economists’ algorithm because it mirrors what the U.S. would present to the World Trade Organization when filing an unfair-trade grievance.
The USDA in August outlined how it would spend the first $6.1 billion of an authorized $12 billion aid package for farmers caught up in the trade war, including cash payments for farmers of grains, oilseeds, cotton, dairy and hogs.
The National Corn Growers Association has urged Perdue to change how the government calculates the economic bite of lost exports in its next tranche of trade aid, expected in December.
Some farmers cracked that they wouldn’t stoop to pick up pennies off the ground, much less request them through bureaucratic forms.
“A penny is laughable,” said Aron Carlson, a corn farmer and president of the Illinois Corn Growers Association.
USDA officials did not answer Reuters’ questions about how many farmers have applied so far for the corn trade aid. But government data gathered by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based lobby group, from public records requests shows the United States had paid farmers $1.9 million for 12,807 corn claims as of Oct. 31.
The payouts ranged from $1 to $38,298, with an average payment of $147.
CRUNCHING NUMBERS, PINCHING PENNIES
USDA economists derived the miniscule payout to U.S. corn farmers through a formula seeking to estimate their economic damage – one many farmers call simplistic and lacking in common sense.
USDA economists ran an analysis of exports as a share of total production; the time it will take to adjust to new trade patterns; the observed price impact; and the measurement of how long it would take to burn through leftover supplies, the agency has said.
They looked at how much corn China and the European Union – two export markets that the U.S. has engaged in trade fights – imported from the U.S. in 2017. They then figured that the damage from the 25 percent tariffs on corn from China and the EU totaled $192 million. The USDA then divided that figure by the 14.6 billion bushels of corn that U.S. farmers harvested in 2017, bringing the per-bushel total to one cent – but only for half of all the bushels they harvest this year.
That approach does not account for the ripple effects the plummeting price of soybeans has had on the corn market, or the reduced demand from Mexico, which started buying more South American corn during the acrimonious negotiations that recently led to a new deal replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
It also does not factor in the impact of the Trump Administration’s multiple-front trade fights this year with many top agricultural markets on global exports of corn-related byproducts, such as ethanol and distillers dried grains.
The agency did throw corn farmers a bone: Calculations for the second tranche of trade aid expected next month may include the bids that cash merchants around the country were offering farmers for their grain, as well as other market conditions.
That’s provided little consolation to farmers who watched prices for the Chicago Board of Trade corn futures contract that tracks the crop they harvested this fall shed 42-1/4 cents per bushel, or 10.5 percent, from the time President Trump announced early in his term that he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA until details of the penny plan were released in August.
Corn futures have fallen another four cents since then as ongoing concerns about the fight with China that has weighed on soybeans have cast a pall across the entire agriculture sector.
LEAVE NO PENNY BEHIND
So far, $837.8 million of the total promised $12 billion has been paid out, according to the USDA.
For Indiana farmer Randy Kron, the corn trade aid means about $900, enough to pay for a few parts for his planter, or some seeds for next spring’s planting. His son, who helps them run their 2,200 acre crop farm, thinks the amount isn’t worth the effort.
“He’s tired of hearing his Dad preach to him about how bad it can get,” said Kron, 57.
Kron said he will apply for the federal assistance nonetheless.
“I started farming in 1983,” he said. “Back then, every penny mattered. We paid attention to pennies.”
Rob Sharkey, an Illinois farmer, hopes his corn trade aid check will be big enough for that margarita machine he and his wife have been eyeing – but they doubt they’ll be any left over for the booze.
Federal economists have calculated that the nation’s losses in corn – its largest crop by harvest and export volume – amount to just a penny per bushel, a pittance farmers call absurd. That’s in stark contrast to the substantial $1.65 per bushel the government will pay for lost sales of soybeans, the crop hardest hit by retaliatory Chinese tariffs in a trade war launched by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Both subsidies only cover half the bushels harvested this fall, though the government could soon decide to apply more aid money to this season.
“You have to wonder why Washington even bothered” with the corn subsidy, said Sharkey, 43, a fifth-generation farmer. “The soybean payment? That’s real money that can help us.”
Even Sonny Perdue, Trump’s agriculture chief, fails to understand the pennies in trade aid. The U.S. Department of Agriculture secretary – a former farmer himself – recently told corn growers gathered in Champaign, Illinois, that the measly offering left him baffled and asking his agency’s economists how they figured the number.
“We have got $1.65 on beans and a penny on corn? That doesn’t make any sense’,” he said. “If I were picking numbers, I’d have picked a different one.”
But Perdue said the department was obligated to stick with the economists’ algorithm because it mirrors what the U.S. would present to the World Trade Organization when filing an unfair-trade grievance.
The USDA in August outlined how it would spend the first $6.1 billion of an authorized $12 billion aid package for farmers caught up in the trade war, including cash payments for farmers of grains, oilseeds, cotton, dairy and hogs.
The National Corn Growers Association has urged Perdue to change how the government calculates the economic bite of lost exports in its next tranche of trade aid, expected in December.
Some farmers cracked that they wouldn’t stoop to pick up pennies off the ground, much less request them through bureaucratic forms.
“A penny is laughable,” said Aron Carlson, a corn farmer and president of the Illinois Corn Growers Association.
USDA officials did not answer Reuters’ questions about how many farmers have applied so far for the corn trade aid. But government data gathered by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based lobby group, from public records requests shows the United States had paid farmers $1.9 million for 12,807 corn claims as of Oct. 31.
The payouts ranged from $1 to $38,298, with an average payment of $147.
CRUNCHING NUMBERS, PINCHING PENNIES
USDA economists derived the miniscule payout to U.S. corn farmers through a formula seeking to estimate their economic damage – one many farmers call simplistic and lacking in common sense.
USDA economists ran an analysis of exports as a share of total production; the time it will take to adjust to new trade patterns; the observed price impact; and the measurement of how long it would take to burn through leftover supplies, the agency has said.
They looked at how much corn China and the European Union – two export markets that the U.S. has engaged in trade fights – imported from the U.S. in 2017. They then figured that the damage from the 25 percent tariffs on corn from China and the EU totaled $192 million. The USDA then divided that figure by the 14.6 billion bushels of corn that U.S. farmers harvested in 2017, bringing the per-bushel total to one cent – but only for half of all the bushels they harvest this year.
That approach does not account for the ripple effects the plummeting price of soybeans has had on the corn market, or the reduced demand from Mexico, which started buying more South American corn during the acrimonious negotiations that recently led to a new deal replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
It also does not factor in the impact of the Trump Administration’s multiple-front trade fights this year with many top agricultural markets on global exports of corn-related byproducts, such as ethanol and distillers dried grains.
The agency did throw corn farmers a bone: Calculations for the second tranche of trade aid expected next month may include the bids that cash merchants around the country were offering farmers for their grain, as well as other market conditions.
That’s provided little consolation to farmers who watched prices for the Chicago Board of Trade corn futures contract that tracks the crop they harvested this fall shed 42-1/4 cents per bushel, or 10.5 percent, from the time President Trump announced early in his term that he wanted to re-negotiate NAFTA until details of the penny plan were released in August.
Corn futures have fallen another four cents since then as ongoing concerns about the fight with China that has weighed on soybeans have cast a pall across the entire agriculture sector.
LEAVE NO PENNY BEHIND
So far, $837.8 million of the total promised $12 billion has been paid out, according to the USDA.
For Indiana farmer Randy Kron, the corn trade aid means about $900, enough to pay for a few parts for his planter, or some seeds for next spring’s planting. His son, who helps them run their 2,200 acre crop farm, thinks the amount isn’t worth the effort.
“He’s tired of hearing his Dad preach to him about how bad it can get,” said Kron, 57.
Kron said he will apply for the federal assistance nonetheless.
“I started farming in 1983,” he said. “Back then, every penny mattered. We paid attention to pennies.”
Trump-loving Ohio autoworkers feel betrayed after GM plant closes: ‘We’ve seen nothing but job losses’
Travis Gettys - raw story
27 NOV 2018 AT 10:35 ET
Autoworkers who voted for President Donald Trump are feeling betrayed after General Motors announced it would close five factories — including one in an Ohio county that backed the president.
GM announced Monday it would close the factories and lay off nearly 15,000 workers, including many in Lordstown, where Trump won by six points in 2016, reported the Washington Post.
Trumbull County had backed Barack Obama by 23 points in 2012, but voters were won over by Trump’s message on jobs.
“He came to our community and said: ‘Don’t sell your house. These jobs are coming back,’” said David Green, president of United Auto Workers Local 1112.
About 40 percent of the local union voted for Trump, but Green said they had little to show for it.
“We’ve seen nothing but job losses around here,” Green said.
Capri Cafaro, a former Democratic leader of the Ohio Senate who lives in Trumbull County, said the closure was disappointing but hardly surprising.
“It doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, given the trend line that has been happening,” Cafaro said. “We lost 1,500 jobs in the last year.”
Green said the announcement felt like a gut punch.
“It’s like someone knocks the wind out of you,” he said. “You lose your breath for a minute.”
GM announced Monday it would close the factories and lay off nearly 15,000 workers, including many in Lordstown, where Trump won by six points in 2016, reported the Washington Post.
Trumbull County had backed Barack Obama by 23 points in 2012, but voters were won over by Trump’s message on jobs.
“He came to our community and said: ‘Don’t sell your house. These jobs are coming back,’” said David Green, president of United Auto Workers Local 1112.
About 40 percent of the local union voted for Trump, but Green said they had little to show for it.
“We’ve seen nothing but job losses around here,” Green said.
Capri Cafaro, a former Democratic leader of the Ohio Senate who lives in Trumbull County, said the closure was disappointing but hardly surprising.
“It doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, given the trend line that has been happening,” Cafaro said. “We lost 1,500 jobs in the last year.”
Green said the announcement felt like a gut punch.
“It’s like someone knocks the wind out of you,” he said. “You lose your breath for a minute.”
White House admits Trump climate policies will cost Americans $500 billion a year
Trump team approves -- but tries to bury -- report finding inaction on climate policies will devastate the country.
JOE ROMM - thinkprogress
NOV 24, 2018, 12:26 PM
PROJECTED CHANGES IN ANNUAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURES (2071–2100) WITH STRONG CLIMATE POLICIES (LEFT) AND WITH CURRENT POLICIES (RIGHT). CREDIT: NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT.
|
THE TOTAL AREA OF EACH CIRCLE REPRESENTS THE PROJECTED ANNUAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES (IN 2015 DOLLARS) UNDER A HIGHER SCENARIO (RCP8.5) IN 2090 RELATIVE TO A NO-CHANGE SCENARIO. THE DECREASE IN DAMAGES UNDER A LOWER SCENARIO (RCP4.5) COMPARED TO RCP8.5 IS SHOWN IN THE LIGHTER-SHADED AREA OF EACH CIRCLE. CREDIT:NCA.
|
The 1,000-page climate report released by the White House Friday quantifies the staggering cost of President Trump’s climate science denial.
The congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment (NCA) by hundreds of the country’s top scientists warns that a do-nothing climate policy will end up costing Americans more than a half-trillion dollars per year in increased sickness and death, coastal property damages, loss of worker productivity, and other damages.
Building on a 600-page analysis of climate science from 2017, the NCA details just how dangerous Trump administration’s policy of climate inaction is to Americans.
The White House oversaw the report’s review and clearance process — and tried to bury the findings by releasing it at 2 p.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
But the reality of climate change cannot be buried. Indeed the report concludes that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.”
The NCA projects a devastated America on our current path of unrestricted carbon pollution—widespread Dust-Bowlification and 7°F to 8°F warming over the entire inland portion of the country, even as coastal America is slammed by sea levels rising a foot per decade, resulting in ever-worsening storm surges.
The report concludes that if governments meet their Paris targets, and then go beyond them, overall damage can be limited (the RCP4.5 scenario, in which temperatures rise some 4°F by century’s end). But the NCA makes clear that with policies that undercut the Paris targets — such as Trump’s pledge to withdraw from Paris and boost domestic carbon pollution from fossil fuels — catastrophic impacts would be inevitable (the RCP8.5 scenario, where temperatures rise by 7°F or more).
One final point: The report warns ominously, “It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.”
The choices we make today won’t just determine the degree of harm we do to our children and grandchildren, but to the next 50 generations and beyond. The immorality of Trump’s climate policies simply cannot be quantified.
The congressionally-mandated National Climate Assessment (NCA) by hundreds of the country’s top scientists warns that a do-nothing climate policy will end up costing Americans more than a half-trillion dollars per year in increased sickness and death, coastal property damages, loss of worker productivity, and other damages.
Building on a 600-page analysis of climate science from 2017, the NCA details just how dangerous Trump administration’s policy of climate inaction is to Americans.
The White House oversaw the report’s review and clearance process — and tried to bury the findings by releasing it at 2 p.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving.
But the reality of climate change cannot be buried. Indeed the report concludes that “the evidence of human-caused climate change is overwhelming and continues to strengthen, that the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country, and that climate-related threats to Americans’ physical, social, and economic well-being are rising.”
The NCA projects a devastated America on our current path of unrestricted carbon pollution—widespread Dust-Bowlification and 7°F to 8°F warming over the entire inland portion of the country, even as coastal America is slammed by sea levels rising a foot per decade, resulting in ever-worsening storm surges.
The report concludes that if governments meet their Paris targets, and then go beyond them, overall damage can be limited (the RCP4.5 scenario, in which temperatures rise some 4°F by century’s end). But the NCA makes clear that with policies that undercut the Paris targets — such as Trump’s pledge to withdraw from Paris and boost domestic carbon pollution from fossil fuels — catastrophic impacts would be inevitable (the RCP8.5 scenario, where temperatures rise by 7°F or more).
One final point: The report warns ominously, “It is very likely that some physical and ecological impacts will be irreversible for thousands of years, while others will be permanent.”
The choices we make today won’t just determine the degree of harm we do to our children and grandchildren, but to the next 50 generations and beyond. The immorality of Trump’s climate policies simply cannot be quantified.
‘Never seen things this bad’: Soy farmers fume as their crops rot in storage thanks to Trump’s trade wars
Reuters - raw story
21 NOV 2018 AT 06:36 ET
U.S. farmers finishing their harvests are facing a big problem – where to put the mountain of grain they cannot sell to Chinese buyers.
For Louisiana farmer Richard Fontenot and his neighbors, the solution was a costly one: Let the crops rot.
Fontenot plowed under 1,000 of his 1,700 soybean acres this fall, chopping plants into the dirt instead of harvesting more than $300,000 worth of beans.
His beans were damaged by bad weather, made worse by a wet harvest. Normally, he could sell them anyway to a local elevator – giant silos usually run by international grains merchants that store grain.
But this year they aren’t buying as much damaged grain. The elevators are already chock full.
“No one wants them,” Fontenot said in a telephone interview. As he spoke, he drove his tractor across a soybean field, tilling under his crop. “I don’t know what else to do.”
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year, according to interviews with more than two dozen farmers, academic researchers and farm lenders. It’s one of the results, they say, of a U.S. trade war with China that has sharply hurt export demand and swamped storage facilities with excess grain.
In Louisiana, up to 15 percent of the oilseed crop is being plowed under or is too damaged to market, according to data analyzed by Louisiana State University staff. Crops are going to waste in parts of Mississippi and Arkansas. Grain piles, dusted by snow, sit on the ground in North and South Dakota. And in Illinois and Indiana, some farmers are struggling to protect silo bags stuffed with crops from animals.
U.S. farmers planted 89.1 million acres of soybeans this year, the second most ever, expecting China’s rising demand to give them better returns than other bulk crops.
But Beijing slapped a 25 percent tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation for duties imposed by Washington on Chinese exports. That effectively shut down U.S. soybean exports to China, worth around $12 billion last year. China typically takes around 60 percent of U.S. supplies.
The U.S. government rolled out an aid program of around the same size – $12 billion – to help farmers absorb the cost of the trade war. As of mid-November, $837.8 million had been paid out.
Some of that money will pass from farmers to grain merchants such as Archer Daniels Midland Co and Bunge Ltd, who are charging farmers more to store crops at elevators where there is limited space. Bunge and ADM did not respond to requests for comment on storage fees.
The storage crunch and higher fees have boosted revenues at grain elevator Andersons [ANDE.O], Chief Executive Officer Pat Bowe said in an interview.
“It’s paying a grain handler to store – it’s the old-fashioned way to make money,” Bowe said.
These are also boom times for John Wierenga, president of grain storage bag retailer Neeralta. Sales of their bags – white tubes up to 300 feet now littering Midwest fields – are up 30 percent from a year ago.
“The demand has been huge,” Wierenga said. “We are sold out.”
HIGHER FEES.
Farmers are feeling the pinch. Those in central Illinois could pay up to 40 percent more than in previous years to store crops over the coming weeks, agricultural consultant Matt Bennett estimated.
That amounts to between 3 cents to 6 cents a bushel, Bennett said, a painful expense for a crop that was already expected to deliver little income to farmers.
Storage rates are swinging wildly, depending on the elevator location. Grain dealers at rivers typically charge more than their inland counterparts because they are more dependent on export markets.
At some Midwest river terminals, farmers were paying 60 cents a bushel to store soybeans until the end of the year – more than twice as much as a year ago. Some commercial terminals are charging farmers to just drop off their soybeans.
The trade war has only exacerbated the strain on storage, which has been a persistent problem in recent years due largely to a worldwide oversupply of grains.
Even before this fall’s harvest, around 20 percent of total grain storage available in the U.S. was full with corn, soybeans and wheat from previous harvests, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was the highest in 12 years for this time of year.
Some grain merchants are also charging additional fees for farmers who deliver less-than-perfect soybeans, said Russell Altom, a soybean farmer and senior vice president of agricultural lending at Relyance Bank in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
“I’ve never seen things this bad,” Altom said. “I know several farmers who hired lawyers, to see if they can sue over the pricing and fees issues.”
Eric Maupin, a farmer in Newbern, Tennessee, said he was facing so-called dockage rates of between 60 cents at $1.20 per bushels at Bunge Elevators in his area – more than three times as high as a year ago.
“Damage can be anything – a split bean, one that’s too small, one that’s too big – whatever,” Maupin said.
Some farmers are pulling farm equipment out of barns to make room for the overflow of grains.
After packing nearly half a million bushels of corn and soybeans in their usual steel bins, Terry Honselman and his family found some additional space in 35-year-old shed on their Casey, Illinois, farm.
Most years, the building protects farm equipment and bags of seed. Now, it is stuffed with 75,000 bushels of corn.
Like others, Honselman is banking on a resolution to the trade war before this spring – when he says he will need the space back for his planting supplies.
RELATED: U.S. crops rot as trade war spikes storage costs
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year. It’s one of the results, they say, of trade war with China.
For Louisiana farmer Richard Fontenot and his neighbors, the solution was a costly one: Let the crops rot.
Fontenot plowed under 1,000 of his 1,700 soybean acres this fall, chopping plants into the dirt instead of harvesting more than $300,000 worth of beans.
His beans were damaged by bad weather, made worse by a wet harvest. Normally, he could sell them anyway to a local elevator – giant silos usually run by international grains merchants that store grain.
But this year they aren’t buying as much damaged grain. The elevators are already chock full.
“No one wants them,” Fontenot said in a telephone interview. As he spoke, he drove his tractor across a soybean field, tilling under his crop. “I don’t know what else to do.”
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year, according to interviews with more than two dozen farmers, academic researchers and farm lenders. It’s one of the results, they say, of a U.S. trade war with China that has sharply hurt export demand and swamped storage facilities with excess grain.
In Louisiana, up to 15 percent of the oilseed crop is being plowed under or is too damaged to market, according to data analyzed by Louisiana State University staff. Crops are going to waste in parts of Mississippi and Arkansas. Grain piles, dusted by snow, sit on the ground in North and South Dakota. And in Illinois and Indiana, some farmers are struggling to protect silo bags stuffed with crops from animals.
U.S. farmers planted 89.1 million acres of soybeans this year, the second most ever, expecting China’s rising demand to give them better returns than other bulk crops.
But Beijing slapped a 25 percent tariff on U.S. soybeans in retaliation for duties imposed by Washington on Chinese exports. That effectively shut down U.S. soybean exports to China, worth around $12 billion last year. China typically takes around 60 percent of U.S. supplies.
The U.S. government rolled out an aid program of around the same size – $12 billion – to help farmers absorb the cost of the trade war. As of mid-November, $837.8 million had been paid out.
Some of that money will pass from farmers to grain merchants such as Archer Daniels Midland Co and Bunge Ltd, who are charging farmers more to store crops at elevators where there is limited space. Bunge and ADM did not respond to requests for comment on storage fees.
The storage crunch and higher fees have boosted revenues at grain elevator Andersons [ANDE.O], Chief Executive Officer Pat Bowe said in an interview.
“It’s paying a grain handler to store – it’s the old-fashioned way to make money,” Bowe said.
These are also boom times for John Wierenga, president of grain storage bag retailer Neeralta. Sales of their bags – white tubes up to 300 feet now littering Midwest fields – are up 30 percent from a year ago.
“The demand has been huge,” Wierenga said. “We are sold out.”
HIGHER FEES.
Farmers are feeling the pinch. Those in central Illinois could pay up to 40 percent more than in previous years to store crops over the coming weeks, agricultural consultant Matt Bennett estimated.
That amounts to between 3 cents to 6 cents a bushel, Bennett said, a painful expense for a crop that was already expected to deliver little income to farmers.
Storage rates are swinging wildly, depending on the elevator location. Grain dealers at rivers typically charge more than their inland counterparts because they are more dependent on export markets.
At some Midwest river terminals, farmers were paying 60 cents a bushel to store soybeans until the end of the year – more than twice as much as a year ago. Some commercial terminals are charging farmers to just drop off their soybeans.
The trade war has only exacerbated the strain on storage, which has been a persistent problem in recent years due largely to a worldwide oversupply of grains.
Even before this fall’s harvest, around 20 percent of total grain storage available in the U.S. was full with corn, soybeans and wheat from previous harvests, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That was the highest in 12 years for this time of year.
Some grain merchants are also charging additional fees for farmers who deliver less-than-perfect soybeans, said Russell Altom, a soybean farmer and senior vice president of agricultural lending at Relyance Bank in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
“I’ve never seen things this bad,” Altom said. “I know several farmers who hired lawyers, to see if they can sue over the pricing and fees issues.”
Eric Maupin, a farmer in Newbern, Tennessee, said he was facing so-called dockage rates of between 60 cents at $1.20 per bushels at Bunge Elevators in his area – more than three times as high as a year ago.
“Damage can be anything – a split bean, one that’s too small, one that’s too big – whatever,” Maupin said.
Some farmers are pulling farm equipment out of barns to make room for the overflow of grains.
After packing nearly half a million bushels of corn and soybeans in their usual steel bins, Terry Honselman and his family found some additional space in 35-year-old shed on their Casey, Illinois, farm.
Most years, the building protects farm equipment and bags of seed. Now, it is stuffed with 75,000 bushels of corn.
Like others, Honselman is banking on a resolution to the trade war before this spring – when he says he will need the space back for his planting supplies.
RELATED: U.S. crops rot as trade war spikes storage costs
Across the United States, grain farmers are plowing under crops, leaving them to rot or piling them on the ground, in hopes of better prices next year. It’s one of the results, they say, of trade war with China.
Trump’s $12 billion bailout of farmers hurt by his trade wars has been a massive bust: NYT
Brad Reed - raw story
19 NOV 2018 AT 09:30 ET
Pissident Donald Trump’s $12 billion bailout of farmers who had been hurt by his trade wars has been a massive bust politically — and a New York Times report has found that very little of it has gone to the struggling farmers who need it most.
According to the Times, the bailout program “has done little to cushion the blow” of the president’s trade wars, “with red tape and long waiting periods resulting in few payouts so far.”
In fact, the Times estimates, just $838 million of the $6 billion worth of bailout funds that have been authorized so far has been paid out.
Among the problems with the program, the paper reports, is that farmers cannot apply for relief funds until they complete their harvests for the season, which has harmed farmers whose harvests have been delayed due to bad weather.
Jim Mulhern, president of the National Milk Producers Federation, tells the Times that most dairy farmers hit hard by the tariffs haven’t seen any significant relief since the program was announced.
“This was supposed to make sure farmers were not the victims of this trade policy,” he says. “I think most agriculture producers feel that the payments have not come close to making up for the damage for the tariffs.”
Lynn Rohrscheib, a corn and soybean farmer from Illinois, tells the Times that she’s also felt frustrated by the slow pace of trade negotiations between Trump and China.
“We don’t want a handout,” she said. “We want trade. We want to sell the crop.”
Read the whole report here.
According to the Times, the bailout program “has done little to cushion the blow” of the president’s trade wars, “with red tape and long waiting periods resulting in few payouts so far.”
In fact, the Times estimates, just $838 million of the $6 billion worth of bailout funds that have been authorized so far has been paid out.
Among the problems with the program, the paper reports, is that farmers cannot apply for relief funds until they complete their harvests for the season, which has harmed farmers whose harvests have been delayed due to bad weather.
Jim Mulhern, president of the National Milk Producers Federation, tells the Times that most dairy farmers hit hard by the tariffs haven’t seen any significant relief since the program was announced.
“This was supposed to make sure farmers were not the victims of this trade policy,” he says. “I think most agriculture producers feel that the payments have not come close to making up for the damage for the tariffs.”
Lynn Rohrscheib, a corn and soybean farmer from Illinois, tells the Times that she’s also felt frustrated by the slow pace of trade negotiations between Trump and China.
“We don’t want a handout,” she said. “We want trade. We want to sell the crop.”
Read the whole report here.
Trump Administration Plots Costly Private-Care Expansion for Veterans
The plan sets up a clash with Democrats, who say the administration is thwarting congressional intent and will starve the VA health system to pay for private care.
by Isaac Arnsdorf - pro publica
Nov. 15, 10:32 a.m. EST
Last June, President Donald Trump signed a landmark law on veterans’ health care after months of tense negotiations. At the ceremony in the Rose Garden, Trump said the bill would deliver on his campaign promise to let veterans see private doctors instead of using the Department of Veterans Affairs’ government-run health service: “I’m going to sign legislation that will make veterans’ choice permanent,” he said.
Standing behind him, the leaders of major veterans groups looked around uncomfortably. What Trump called “choice” these veterans groups called “privatization,” and they’d been warning for years that it would cost taxpayers more money and deliver worse care for veterans. The veterans groups had endorsed the bill, but Trump’s description of it was not what they thought they were there to support.
The moment left no doubt that the Trump administration is determined to use the new law to expand the private sector’s role in veterans’ health care. The administration is working on a plan to shift millions more veterans to private doctors and is aiming to unveil the proposal during Trump’s State of Union address in January, according to four people briefed on the proposal. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose information about the administration’s plans.
The cost of expanding private care is hard to predict, but VA officials have told Congress and veterans groups that it will range from $13.9 billion to $32.1 billion over five years, the four people said. Since the administration opposes lifting overall government spending, Democrats say the increased cost of private care will come at the expense of the VA’s own health system. Some lawmakers said the administration’s plan defies the purpose of the law they passed.
Trump’s first VA secretary said he was forced out by ideologues determined to privatize the department, which he called, in a New York Times op-ed, “a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.” The new secretary has repeatedly denied that privatization is the administration’s goal. But the fact is that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do: The share of VA care delivered in the private sector has grown to 36 percent from 22 percent in 2014, and the administration is weighing policy changes that would move up to 55 percent of veterans to private providers, according to the people briefed on the deliberations.
VA spokesman Curt Cashour wouldn’t comment on those figures. He said the new policies are still under development but “will ensure that VA delivers veterans the best and most timely care possible with maximum continuity — whether it’s at VA or in the community.”
As a candidate, Trump spoke often about improving veterans’ care, and as president, he has returned often to that rhetoric. At his post-midterm press conference, he said, “I’ve done more for the vets than any president has done, certainly in many, many decades, with choice and with other things.” But he has plunged the VA leadership into turmoil and stirred anxiety over privatization, which many veterans oppose. And just this week, he was criticized for not participating in any public events on Veterans Day.
The White House declined to comment.
Democrats are eager to use their new House majority to stymie the Trump administration’s plans for the VA. “I am deeply concerned about efforts to profiteer off of veterans by undermining VA-administered care and expanding VA’s reliance on private care,” Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat who’s hoping to chair the House veterans committee, said in a statement. “It will be extremely important for the new Congress to conduct effective and frequent oversight of VA leadership so that this legislation is implemented properly.”
(Read more)
Standing behind him, the leaders of major veterans groups looked around uncomfortably. What Trump called “choice” these veterans groups called “privatization,” and they’d been warning for years that it would cost taxpayers more money and deliver worse care for veterans. The veterans groups had endorsed the bill, but Trump’s description of it was not what they thought they were there to support.
The moment left no doubt that the Trump administration is determined to use the new law to expand the private sector’s role in veterans’ health care. The administration is working on a plan to shift millions more veterans to private doctors and is aiming to unveil the proposal during Trump’s State of Union address in January, according to four people briefed on the proposal. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose information about the administration’s plans.
The cost of expanding private care is hard to predict, but VA officials have told Congress and veterans groups that it will range from $13.9 billion to $32.1 billion over five years, the four people said. Since the administration opposes lifting overall government spending, Democrats say the increased cost of private care will come at the expense of the VA’s own health system. Some lawmakers said the administration’s plan defies the purpose of the law they passed.
Trump’s first VA secretary said he was forced out by ideologues determined to privatize the department, which he called, in a New York Times op-ed, “a political issue aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines care for veterans.” The new secretary has repeatedly denied that privatization is the administration’s goal. But the fact is that Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do: The share of VA care delivered in the private sector has grown to 36 percent from 22 percent in 2014, and the administration is weighing policy changes that would move up to 55 percent of veterans to private providers, according to the people briefed on the deliberations.
VA spokesman Curt Cashour wouldn’t comment on those figures. He said the new policies are still under development but “will ensure that VA delivers veterans the best and most timely care possible with maximum continuity — whether it’s at VA or in the community.”
As a candidate, Trump spoke often about improving veterans’ care, and as president, he has returned often to that rhetoric. At his post-midterm press conference, he said, “I’ve done more for the vets than any president has done, certainly in many, many decades, with choice and with other things.” But he has plunged the VA leadership into turmoil and stirred anxiety over privatization, which many veterans oppose. And just this week, he was criticized for not participating in any public events on Veterans Day.
The White House declined to comment.
Democrats are eager to use their new House majority to stymie the Trump administration’s plans for the VA. “I am deeply concerned about efforts to profiteer off of veterans by undermining VA-administered care and expanding VA’s reliance on private care,” Rep. Mark Takano, a California Democrat who’s hoping to chair the House veterans committee, said in a statement. “It will be extremely important for the new Congress to conduct effective and frequent oversight of VA leadership so that this legislation is implemented properly.”
(Read more)
'It hasn't benefited us a dime': Georgia steelworkers' verdict on Trump tariffs
US steel plants are meant to be booming in the wake of Trump’s tariffs – but tell that to production line workers in Trenton
Khushbu Shah in Trenton
the guardian
Sun 11 Nov 2018 06.00 EST
Union member and mill operator Joey Casey, 40, wasn’t getting paid for the day, so he enjoyed lunch at Thatcher’s BBQ on the main square in Trenton, Georgia.
The day before, managers at the Caparo Bull Moose Tube Co plant told Casey, also the local union president, and those on his production line not to come in to work because of a malfunctioning part. Because the plant notified them with enough time, Casey and his colleagues won’t get paid until the part is fixed.
The odd non-payday will add up, the workers say. It comes just weeks after a company-enforced lockout where the union workers survived on unemployment pay for five weeks. It was the first lockout in Georgia for 30 years.
It was not meant to be this way. Steel plants are meant to be booming in America in the wake of tariffs introduced by Donald Trump to try to get heavy industry moving again. But here the benefits of the controversial policy are yet to filter down. And in this town of 2,200, tucked into the north-west corner of Georgia between Tennessee and Alabama, these steelworkers doubt the benefits ever will reach the workers.
In June, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel imported from the European Union, Canada and Mexico, with the tax applying to a range of steel and aluminium products including sheets, plates, bars, pipes and “semi-finished” products. By making it more expensive for the country’s manufacturers to buy foreign steel, Trump says he’s protecting American workers and businesses.
Ironically, Caparo Bull Moose Industries is a US-based unit of a privately owned UK company – so one could argue the benefits are ultimately going to a foreign firm.
Management of the firm welcome Trump’s tariffs. “We are doing well,” Jim Charmley, president and CEO of Caparo Bull Moose Industries told the Guardian by phone from the St Louis headquarters. They are adding a dozen jobs to their manufacturing operations in Arizona because of the limits on Korean imports, he said, though he was unable to give specifics on financials.
Back in Thatcher’s BBQ, Gary Christopher, 54, who has worked in maintenance at the plant for 33 years, poured a glug of ranch dressing over his salad and gave a blunt assessment of Trump’s policies. “It [hasn’t] benefited anyone at this table a dime.”
But they do think the company benefited after the tariffs were announced, they allege, saying Caparo Bull Moose stockpiled cheap steel, knowing the tariffs were coming. And as soon as they had a warehouse full of tubes, Casey alleged, the workers were locked out.
That meant the company would not have to pay them while they negotiated their contract and could sell the stockpile of goods while putting them on a much lower unemployment rate.
Three heads at the table nod in agreement.
In an email to the Guardian, in response to these allegations, Charmley said: “These allegations are misguided and incorrect.”
He said: “I would point out two things: first, negotiations went on for five months before a work stoppage was initiated by the company, so if we were planning that, we would have done so sooner. The tariffs took effect several months before a work stoppage, so the timing is off. Second, no one wins when work stops; neither the company nor the workers benefit, so implementing a work stoppage was the last thing the company wanted to do.”
Unemployment for those weeks was $330 a week, or, $8.25 dollars an hour, according to the union members. When they’re not locked out, according to the company, the average hourly pay is $22.59.
No one takes care of us, said Richard “Harley” Hamilton, 59, who works on Casey’s line, pushing back his black Native American veteran hat.
The lockout has left a bitter taste. At the same time Trump was singing the praises of the steel industry in America, US Steel Workers Union 13679 in Trenton – just 53 workers strong – was fighting for a pay increase and trying to keep their burgeoning healthcare insurance from eating up their incremental raise. For six months, they negotiated.
---
As Casey, Christopher, Hamilton and Eddie Varnell, 59, wrapped up lunch, they drove down the road to take a look at the strip of grass – the ditch, they call it – the union workers stood on for seven weeks, waiting to come to an agreement with their employer. Just as a shift ended, they were greeted by Charlie Pittman, who was able to work that day on his line.
He immediately jumped into the conversation, unhappy with how they were treated by the company during the lockout. He stopped buying his medication because he couldn’t afford it on unemployment.
“Thank God for donations,” he said. “We wouldn’t have enough food. We wouldn’t have been able to pay our electricity bills. I had no savings. Had it not been for the help of unemployment, the union and the community,” he trailed off, looking at the others.
The company tried to negotiate with the union 15 times, Charnley said. “We were making no progress at the table.”
He said the company offered the union workers what he considered a good raise: $1,000 in exchange for $150 increase on healthcare premiums. The average worker at the plant makes $47,000, just slightly above the county household median income.
“But the union rejected that,” he added. “The offer we made to the Trenton workers, very similar to the offer we made to four other plants – all four of those have accepted it – and since Trenton, our plant in Chicago has accepted a very similar offer.”
Casey and the others don’t see it that way. “We’re better off under our old contract than the new one,” he said.
Yet no one wants to leave the plant.
“We made this company, we made it what it is, off our backs. I believe in the company still,” Hamilton added.
These workers could now be just days away from another potential lockout, trying to negotiate the same contract that was up eight months ago. “The union has received a competitive offer from the company, and we hope the workers are allowed to vote on it so we can all move forward,” Charmley said.
Do the workers feel secure at a time when their sector is supposed to be booming?
“Not now we don’t,” Christopher said.
But it’s the quietest of the bunch who sums up their feelings best.
“It’s like we’re looking down a cliff,” Varnell said.
The day before, managers at the Caparo Bull Moose Tube Co plant told Casey, also the local union president, and those on his production line not to come in to work because of a malfunctioning part. Because the plant notified them with enough time, Casey and his colleagues won’t get paid until the part is fixed.
The odd non-payday will add up, the workers say. It comes just weeks after a company-enforced lockout where the union workers survived on unemployment pay for five weeks. It was the first lockout in Georgia for 30 years.
It was not meant to be this way. Steel plants are meant to be booming in America in the wake of tariffs introduced by Donald Trump to try to get heavy industry moving again. But here the benefits of the controversial policy are yet to filter down. And in this town of 2,200, tucked into the north-west corner of Georgia between Tennessee and Alabama, these steelworkers doubt the benefits ever will reach the workers.
In June, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on steel imported from the European Union, Canada and Mexico, with the tax applying to a range of steel and aluminium products including sheets, plates, bars, pipes and “semi-finished” products. By making it more expensive for the country’s manufacturers to buy foreign steel, Trump says he’s protecting American workers and businesses.
Ironically, Caparo Bull Moose Industries is a US-based unit of a privately owned UK company – so one could argue the benefits are ultimately going to a foreign firm.
Management of the firm welcome Trump’s tariffs. “We are doing well,” Jim Charmley, president and CEO of Caparo Bull Moose Industries told the Guardian by phone from the St Louis headquarters. They are adding a dozen jobs to their manufacturing operations in Arizona because of the limits on Korean imports, he said, though he was unable to give specifics on financials.
Back in Thatcher’s BBQ, Gary Christopher, 54, who has worked in maintenance at the plant for 33 years, poured a glug of ranch dressing over his salad and gave a blunt assessment of Trump’s policies. “It [hasn’t] benefited anyone at this table a dime.”
But they do think the company benefited after the tariffs were announced, they allege, saying Caparo Bull Moose stockpiled cheap steel, knowing the tariffs were coming. And as soon as they had a warehouse full of tubes, Casey alleged, the workers were locked out.
That meant the company would not have to pay them while they negotiated their contract and could sell the stockpile of goods while putting them on a much lower unemployment rate.
Three heads at the table nod in agreement.
In an email to the Guardian, in response to these allegations, Charmley said: “These allegations are misguided and incorrect.”
He said: “I would point out two things: first, negotiations went on for five months before a work stoppage was initiated by the company, so if we were planning that, we would have done so sooner. The tariffs took effect several months before a work stoppage, so the timing is off. Second, no one wins when work stops; neither the company nor the workers benefit, so implementing a work stoppage was the last thing the company wanted to do.”
Unemployment for those weeks was $330 a week, or, $8.25 dollars an hour, according to the union members. When they’re not locked out, according to the company, the average hourly pay is $22.59.
No one takes care of us, said Richard “Harley” Hamilton, 59, who works on Casey’s line, pushing back his black Native American veteran hat.
The lockout has left a bitter taste. At the same time Trump was singing the praises of the steel industry in America, US Steel Workers Union 13679 in Trenton – just 53 workers strong – was fighting for a pay increase and trying to keep their burgeoning healthcare insurance from eating up their incremental raise. For six months, they negotiated.
---
As Casey, Christopher, Hamilton and Eddie Varnell, 59, wrapped up lunch, they drove down the road to take a look at the strip of grass – the ditch, they call it – the union workers stood on for seven weeks, waiting to come to an agreement with their employer. Just as a shift ended, they were greeted by Charlie Pittman, who was able to work that day on his line.
He immediately jumped into the conversation, unhappy with how they were treated by the company during the lockout. He stopped buying his medication because he couldn’t afford it on unemployment.
“Thank God for donations,” he said. “We wouldn’t have enough food. We wouldn’t have been able to pay our electricity bills. I had no savings. Had it not been for the help of unemployment, the union and the community,” he trailed off, looking at the others.
The company tried to negotiate with the union 15 times, Charnley said. “We were making no progress at the table.”
He said the company offered the union workers what he considered a good raise: $1,000 in exchange for $150 increase on healthcare premiums. The average worker at the plant makes $47,000, just slightly above the county household median income.
“But the union rejected that,” he added. “The offer we made to the Trenton workers, very similar to the offer we made to four other plants – all four of those have accepted it – and since Trenton, our plant in Chicago has accepted a very similar offer.”
Casey and the others don’t see it that way. “We’re better off under our old contract than the new one,” he said.
Yet no one wants to leave the plant.
“We made this company, we made it what it is, off our backs. I believe in the company still,” Hamilton added.
These workers could now be just days away from another potential lockout, trying to negotiate the same contract that was up eight months ago. “The union has received a competitive offer from the company, and we hope the workers are allowed to vote on it so we can all move forward,” Charmley said.
Do the workers feel secure at a time when their sector is supposed to be booming?
“Not now we don’t,” Christopher said.
But it’s the quietest of the bunch who sums up their feelings best.
“It’s like we’re looking down a cliff,” Varnell said.
‘I know who the losers are — us’: Farmers in Trump country cry out as trade war drags into harvest time
Brad Reed - raw story
05 NOV 2018 AT 07:24 ET
Soybean farmers in North Dakota are experiencing significant economic hurt thanks to President Donald Trump’s trade war, and some of them aren’t sure their ability to trade with China will ever be fully restored.
The New York Times reports that soy farmers have been particularly hurt by retaliatory tariffs leveled against them by China, which accounts for more than half of the $26 million worth of soybeans America exports every year.
“I’m trying to follow and figure out who the winners are in this tariff war,” said farmer Greg Gebeke. “I know who one of the losers are and that’s us. And that’s painful.”
Things have gotten so bad that Gebeke’s wife, Debra, has recently unretired from her job as a psychologist because there’s such great demand for counseling among distraught farmers.
Even if Trump comes up with a trade deal to restore ties with China, some soy farmers fear that China will nonetheless start importing more soybeans from competitors to reduce the risk of being at the mercy of the United States during future trade fights.
“I’ve been to China 25 times in the last decade talking about the dependability of U.S. soybeans,” Kirk Leeds, the chief executive of the Iowa Soybean Association, tells the Times. “We have done long-term damage to the industry.”
The New York Times reports that soy farmers have been particularly hurt by retaliatory tariffs leveled against them by China, which accounts for more than half of the $26 million worth of soybeans America exports every year.
“I’m trying to follow and figure out who the winners are in this tariff war,” said farmer Greg Gebeke. “I know who one of the losers are and that’s us. And that’s painful.”
Things have gotten so bad that Gebeke’s wife, Debra, has recently unretired from her job as a psychologist because there’s such great demand for counseling among distraught farmers.
Even if Trump comes up with a trade deal to restore ties with China, some soy farmers fear that China will nonetheless start importing more soybeans from competitors to reduce the risk of being at the mercy of the United States during future trade fights.
“I’ve been to China 25 times in the last decade talking about the dependability of U.S. soybeans,” Kirk Leeds, the chief executive of the Iowa Soybean Association, tells the Times. “We have done long-term damage to the industry.”
This is how much more expensive health care premiums will be in 2019 thanks to Trump
Trump’s decision to repeal the individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans is making coverage more costly.
ELHAM KHATAMI - thinkprogress
OCT 26, 2018, 12:35 PM
Health care premiums will be up to 16 percent higher in 2019 than they would have been had the Trump administration not worked so hard to chip away at the Affordable Care Act.
A new study released Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the Trump administration’s decision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans have made premiums across the board — whether on the Obamacare marketplace or not — an average of 6 percent higher in 2019 than they otherwise would have been. The study was based on data from insurers that publicly report the effect of those policy changes in their filings to state insurance commissioners.
When considering the added impact from the Trump administration’s decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, KFF found that premiums for the ACA’s middle tier silver plans will be about 16 percent higher in 2019 than they could have been. Silver plans are the most popular ACA plans, and the only ones that offer cost-sharing reductions to low-income enrollees, giving them extra savings.
The study provides insight into insurer motivations for increasing prices, with many citing the Trump administration’s policies. Similarly, in 2017, insurers cited uncertainty about the future of the ACA when announcing the increases in premium rates for 2018.
“In setting rates for 2018, some insurers assumed either repeal, reduced enforcement, or public perception of reduced enforcement of the individual mandate would lead to a sicker risk pool in 2018 and priced accordingly,” the analysis stated.
Another KFF study from this month found that 2019 premiums are remaining stable or decreasing in some areas of the country, largely because insurers overestimated the effect of Trump’s policies in those areas. Still, Friday’s analysis found that 2019 premiums would see even greater decreases if the individual mandate were still law.
The study comes less than two weeks before the midterm elections, as Republicans continue to campaign on protecting health care, despite a majority of them backing President Trump in eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and gutting the Affordable Care Act. A ThinkProgress review of the websites of key Republican Senate candidates found that more than a third had removed their stances on the disastrous American Health Care Act, which would have stripped an estimated 23 million people of health care. Thirty-two Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA at least once, while also claiming they will defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
A new study released Friday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the Trump administration’s decision to repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate and expand skimpy short-term health plans have made premiums across the board — whether on the Obamacare marketplace or not — an average of 6 percent higher in 2019 than they otherwise would have been. The study was based on data from insurers that publicly report the effect of those policy changes in their filings to state insurance commissioners.
When considering the added impact from the Trump administration’s decision to stop cost-sharing reduction payments, KFF found that premiums for the ACA’s middle tier silver plans will be about 16 percent higher in 2019 than they could have been. Silver plans are the most popular ACA plans, and the only ones that offer cost-sharing reductions to low-income enrollees, giving them extra savings.
The study provides insight into insurer motivations for increasing prices, with many citing the Trump administration’s policies. Similarly, in 2017, insurers cited uncertainty about the future of the ACA when announcing the increases in premium rates for 2018.
“In setting rates for 2018, some insurers assumed either repeal, reduced enforcement, or public perception of reduced enforcement of the individual mandate would lead to a sicker risk pool in 2018 and priced accordingly,” the analysis stated.
Another KFF study from this month found that 2019 premiums are remaining stable or decreasing in some areas of the country, largely because insurers overestimated the effect of Trump’s policies in those areas. Still, Friday’s analysis found that 2019 premiums would see even greater decreases if the individual mandate were still law.
The study comes less than two weeks before the midterm elections, as Republicans continue to campaign on protecting health care, despite a majority of them backing President Trump in eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and gutting the Affordable Care Act. A ThinkProgress review of the websites of key Republican Senate candidates found that more than a third had removed their stances on the disastrous American Health Care Act, which would have stripped an estimated 23 million people of health care. Thirty-two Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA at least once, while also claiming they will defend protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
US firms face tariff-fueled price hikes, widespread labor shortages: Fed
Agence France-Presse - raw story
24 OCT 2018 AT 16:47 ET
US firms nationwide complain trade disputes with China and others are boosting the prices of key inputs, while they continue to face widespread labor shortages, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.
The ongoing difficulty in filling open positions at all skill levels and in every region is delaying projects in some cases, and pressuring firms to raise wages or benefits, or even employ robots to ramp up production, according to the Fed’s latest “beige book” survey of the economy.
While the reports from the Fed’s regional banks reflected a healthy US economy, with “modest to moderate growth,” President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, which has drawn retaliation from trading partners, is potentially adding fuel to inflation.
The central bank is watching price pressures closely to gauge how fast and how far to raise the benchmark lending rate, to allow the economy to continue to grow without an acceleration of inflation.
The Fed has raised the key interest rate three times this year and is widely expected to increase by another 0.25 percentage points in December.
“Manufacturers reported raising prices of finished goods out of necessity as costs of raw materials such as metals rose, which they attributed to tariffs,” the Fed report said.
Some companies are not able to pass on cost increases to customers, and in Philadelphia, firms reported “difficulty meeting the prices of foreign competitors who are not exposed to tariffs on the primary input commodities of their products.”
Trump has imposed steep tariffs on steel, aluminum and about $250 billion in imported goods from China, which has struck back with tariffs of its own on US goods.
– Widespread labor shortages –
Inflation has increased about two percent this year, in line with the Fed’s target, but economists fear growing demand, combined with the tariffs and a labor shortage could ignite price increases.
The Fed said wages are only rose “modestly or moderately” in most of the country — the San Francisco region was a notable exception — but the increases were widespread throughout the United States.
One staffing firm in Philadelphia noted that “resistance to raising starting wages softened further among their clients after years of holding wages steady.”
And companies also have used non-salary options to attract and retain qualified workers, including signing bonuses, flexible hours and more vacation.
The report included anecdotes of companies unable to expand or boost production because of a lack of workers at all levels.
One had a project delayed by six weeks because it could not find an elevator technician, while another company is another firm plans to add “cobots (or collaborative robots)” to increase production.
In Atlanta, “tightening labor markets, particularly among low-skill/ hourly jobs, were restraining business activity,” but many regions cited lack of mid-level and highly skilled employees as well.
With stocks already lower for the day, Wall Street took the news badly, sending the major indices down sharply following the Fed report’s release.
The ongoing difficulty in filling open positions at all skill levels and in every region is delaying projects in some cases, and pressuring firms to raise wages or benefits, or even employ robots to ramp up production, according to the Fed’s latest “beige book” survey of the economy.
While the reports from the Fed’s regional banks reflected a healthy US economy, with “modest to moderate growth,” President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff strategy, which has drawn retaliation from trading partners, is potentially adding fuel to inflation.
The central bank is watching price pressures closely to gauge how fast and how far to raise the benchmark lending rate, to allow the economy to continue to grow without an acceleration of inflation.
The Fed has raised the key interest rate three times this year and is widely expected to increase by another 0.25 percentage points in December.
“Manufacturers reported raising prices of finished goods out of necessity as costs of raw materials such as metals rose, which they attributed to tariffs,” the Fed report said.
Some companies are not able to pass on cost increases to customers, and in Philadelphia, firms reported “difficulty meeting the prices of foreign competitors who are not exposed to tariffs on the primary input commodities of their products.”
Trump has imposed steep tariffs on steel, aluminum and about $250 billion in imported goods from China, which has struck back with tariffs of its own on US goods.
– Widespread labor shortages –
Inflation has increased about two percent this year, in line with the Fed’s target, but economists fear growing demand, combined with the tariffs and a labor shortage could ignite price increases.
The Fed said wages are only rose “modestly or moderately” in most of the country — the San Francisco region was a notable exception — but the increases were widespread throughout the United States.
One staffing firm in Philadelphia noted that “resistance to raising starting wages softened further among their clients after years of holding wages steady.”
And companies also have used non-salary options to attract and retain qualified workers, including signing bonuses, flexible hours and more vacation.
The report included anecdotes of companies unable to expand or boost production because of a lack of workers at all levels.
One had a project delayed by six weeks because it could not find an elevator technician, while another company is another firm plans to add “cobots (or collaborative robots)” to increase production.
In Atlanta, “tightening labor markets, particularly among low-skill/ hourly jobs, were restraining business activity,” but many regions cited lack of mid-level and highly skilled employees as well.
With stocks already lower for the day, Wall Street took the news badly, sending the major indices down sharply following the Fed report’s release.
Trump trade war delivers farm boom in Brazil, gloom in Iowa
Reuters - raw story
11 OCT 2018 AT 09:15 ET
The Bella Vita luxury condominium tower rises 20 stories over the boomtown of Luís Eduardo Magalhães in northeastern Brazil. Its private movie theater and helipad are symbols of how far this dusty farming community has come since it was founded just 18 years ago.
Local soybean producers shell out upwards of a half-million U.S. dollars to live in the complex. Nearby farm equipment sellers, car dealerships and construction supply stores are bustling too.
Meanwhile, nearly 5,000 miles to the north in Boone, Iowa, farmers are hunkering down. At a recent agriculture trade show here, Iowa corn and soybean grower Steve Sheppard reflected the cautious mood.
“I’m not buying any machinery, I’m not spending any money,” Sheppard said.
Two countries. Same business. Two very different fates. The reason: China.
A growing trade war between the United States and China is re-ordering the global grains business. In response to Trump administration tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing this year imposed levies on U.S. agricultural products. Among them was a 25 percent tariff on soybeans, the single most valuable U.S. farm export. U.S. growers sold $12 billion worth to China last year alone.
The fallout has been quick. China, the world’s largest importer of soybeans, has scaled back purchases of U.S. grain to feed its massive hog herd.
It is turning instead to Brazil, which has ridden the wave of Chinese demand for two decades to become a global agricultural powerhouse. Brazilian soybean exports to the Asian country jumped 22 percent by value between January and September, compared to the same period a year ago.
Brazilian producers are not only selling more grain, their soy is fetching $2.83 more per bushel than beans from the United States, up from a premium of just $0.60 a year ago, thanks to stepped up Chinese purchases.
Prices for U.S. soybeans, meanwhile, recently sunk to decade lows that farmers say are below the cost of production. The slump has made the agricultural sector a drag on an otherwise healthy U.S. economy. The Trump administration said in July it would spend up to $12 billion in taxpayer funds to help U.S. farmers offset trade-related losses, although the aid package could shrink.
Many American farmers, overwhelmingly conservative voters who helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency, are standing by their man. They believe he will eventually negotiate a better trade deal with China, whose appetite for soybeans is so vast that it cannot completely wean itself off U.S. grain.
But for the time being, Trump trade policies are handing precious market share, money and momentum to Brazil, the United States’ most formidable agricultural competitor. Some fear the lost ground will be hard to reclaim.
“Bad news on tariffs in the U.S. is good news for them,” Robert Crain, general manager for the Americas for equipment dealer AGCO Corp, said about Brazilian farmers in an interview at the Iowa show.
BOON TO BRAZIL
Like their U.S. counterparts, Brazil’s farmers produce much more grain than is needed at home. Foreign customers are responsible for the country’s agricultural boom. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil’s soy exports now head to China.
The city of Luís Eduardo Magalhães is a testament to the importance of this international trade. Located in the state of Bahia, with farms stretching in every direction, the formerly unincorporated rural area in less than two decades has swelled to 85,000 people. That is bigger than Sioux City, Iowa’s fourth-largest city.
Major employers in Luís Eduardo, as most locals call the city, include fertilizer factories, seed producers and processors of soy and cotton. The area “relies 100 percent on agriculture,” said Carminha Maria Missio, a farmer and president of the local growers union.
While Brazil’s overall economy is stuck in a ditch, the nation’s farm sector rolled to 13 percent growth last year. The John Deere dealership in Luís Eduardo saw its sales rise 15 percent in 2017 and is expecting double-digit growth again this year, managing partner Chico Flores Oliveira said.
The local real estate market is surging too. Another new luxury condo tower is slated to open next year. Single-family homes are sprouting throughout the city. Prices for prime farmland are up 37 percent since 2012, according to consultancy Informa Economics IEG FNP.
Brazil’s total soy area is expected to expand to a record 36.28 million hectares this season due to robust Chinese demand, according to a Reuters poll of analysts.
Farmers here also are bullish on this month’s presidential election in Brazil. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who is leading in the polls, favors rolling back fines for farmers who deforest illegally or break other environmental laws. Like Trump, Bolsonaro, is wary of China. But producers here trust him not to blow it on trade.
“Rural producers support Bolsonaro emphatically,” said Congresswoman Tereza Cristina, head of the powerful agriculture voting bloc in Brazil’s Congress. “We have access to him…and I am certain that he is smart and sensible.”
U.S. FARM BELT PINCHED The outlook is much gloomier in Iowa, the long-established heart of U.S. agriculture.
It is the nation’s top corn-producing state and the No. 2 producer of soybeans. But its access to some global markets has suffered under Trump.
The president walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have opened valuable markets such as Japan to more American ag products. His renegotiation of the NAFTA accord had Mexico, the largest importer of U.S. corn, exploring other suppliers, including Brazil. Now the Chinese are pulling back.
Boone lays smack in the state’s center, surrounded by miles of row crops, hogs and poultry. Farmland values here fell 12 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to Iowa State University. Worries about the U.S.-China trade war loomed over the recent Farm Progress show, which comes to town every other year.
Equipment dealer Lee Randall jotted down prices at an auction of used tractors and implements at the show. Prices have dropped on trade tensions and low crop prices, he said, shaking his head as a green and yellow Deere & Co combine sold for $118,000 and another fetched $82,000.
“Five years ago you could have added 30 percent to every one of these pieces,” said Randall, whose business, Randall Brothers, is based in Ohio.
Nearby, Brett Begemann, chief operating officer for Bayer Crop Science said farmers were likewise scrutinizing purchases of seeds and chemicals. The trade dispute is making it difficult for Bayer to predict 2019 earnings for its agriculture unit.
A two-hour drive north of Boone in Algona, Iowa, a town of about 5,500 people, farm doldrums are crimping business at the local Deere and Harley-Davidson Inc dealerships, the operators said.
“Ultimately this area lives and dies by the farmer,” said Jim Wilcox, an owner of the Harley store.
Farmers’ woes are showing up on bank balance sheets as well. The proportion of the region’s agricultural loans reported as having repayment problems was up in the second quarter, reaching mid-year levels not seen since 2002, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Rodney Jensen, who farms near Algona, regrets not making deals to sell soybeans from his autumn harvest when prices were higher. Like many, he is storing his crop, waiting for better times.
He worries China will not buy as much U.S. soy as it used to, even if the two nations patch things up.
“It’s been pretty pessimistic around here,” Jensen said.
Local soybean producers shell out upwards of a half-million U.S. dollars to live in the complex. Nearby farm equipment sellers, car dealerships and construction supply stores are bustling too.
Meanwhile, nearly 5,000 miles to the north in Boone, Iowa, farmers are hunkering down. At a recent agriculture trade show here, Iowa corn and soybean grower Steve Sheppard reflected the cautious mood.
“I’m not buying any machinery, I’m not spending any money,” Sheppard said.
Two countries. Same business. Two very different fates. The reason: China.
A growing trade war between the United States and China is re-ordering the global grains business. In response to Trump administration tariffs on Chinese goods, Beijing this year imposed levies on U.S. agricultural products. Among them was a 25 percent tariff on soybeans, the single most valuable U.S. farm export. U.S. growers sold $12 billion worth to China last year alone.
The fallout has been quick. China, the world’s largest importer of soybeans, has scaled back purchases of U.S. grain to feed its massive hog herd.
It is turning instead to Brazil, which has ridden the wave of Chinese demand for two decades to become a global agricultural powerhouse. Brazilian soybean exports to the Asian country jumped 22 percent by value between January and September, compared to the same period a year ago.
Brazilian producers are not only selling more grain, their soy is fetching $2.83 more per bushel than beans from the United States, up from a premium of just $0.60 a year ago, thanks to stepped up Chinese purchases.
Prices for U.S. soybeans, meanwhile, recently sunk to decade lows that farmers say are below the cost of production. The slump has made the agricultural sector a drag on an otherwise healthy U.S. economy. The Trump administration said in July it would spend up to $12 billion in taxpayer funds to help U.S. farmers offset trade-related losses, although the aid package could shrink.
Many American farmers, overwhelmingly conservative voters who helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency, are standing by their man. They believe he will eventually negotiate a better trade deal with China, whose appetite for soybeans is so vast that it cannot completely wean itself off U.S. grain.
But for the time being, Trump trade policies are handing precious market share, money and momentum to Brazil, the United States’ most formidable agricultural competitor. Some fear the lost ground will be hard to reclaim.
“Bad news on tariffs in the U.S. is good news for them,” Robert Crain, general manager for the Americas for equipment dealer AGCO Corp, said about Brazilian farmers in an interview at the Iowa show.
BOON TO BRAZIL
Like their U.S. counterparts, Brazil’s farmers produce much more grain than is needed at home. Foreign customers are responsible for the country’s agricultural boom. Nearly 80 percent of Brazil’s soy exports now head to China.
The city of Luís Eduardo Magalhães is a testament to the importance of this international trade. Located in the state of Bahia, with farms stretching in every direction, the formerly unincorporated rural area in less than two decades has swelled to 85,000 people. That is bigger than Sioux City, Iowa’s fourth-largest city.
Major employers in Luís Eduardo, as most locals call the city, include fertilizer factories, seed producers and processors of soy and cotton. The area “relies 100 percent on agriculture,” said Carminha Maria Missio, a farmer and president of the local growers union.
While Brazil’s overall economy is stuck in a ditch, the nation’s farm sector rolled to 13 percent growth last year. The John Deere dealership in Luís Eduardo saw its sales rise 15 percent in 2017 and is expecting double-digit growth again this year, managing partner Chico Flores Oliveira said.
The local real estate market is surging too. Another new luxury condo tower is slated to open next year. Single-family homes are sprouting throughout the city. Prices for prime farmland are up 37 percent since 2012, according to consultancy Informa Economics IEG FNP.
Brazil’s total soy area is expected to expand to a record 36.28 million hectares this season due to robust Chinese demand, according to a Reuters poll of analysts.
Farmers here also are bullish on this month’s presidential election in Brazil. Far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who is leading in the polls, favors rolling back fines for farmers who deforest illegally or break other environmental laws. Like Trump, Bolsonaro, is wary of China. But producers here trust him not to blow it on trade.
“Rural producers support Bolsonaro emphatically,” said Congresswoman Tereza Cristina, head of the powerful agriculture voting bloc in Brazil’s Congress. “We have access to him…and I am certain that he is smart and sensible.”
U.S. FARM BELT PINCHED The outlook is much gloomier in Iowa, the long-established heart of U.S. agriculture.
It is the nation’s top corn-producing state and the No. 2 producer of soybeans. But its access to some global markets has suffered under Trump.
The president walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have opened valuable markets such as Japan to more American ag products. His renegotiation of the NAFTA accord had Mexico, the largest importer of U.S. corn, exploring other suppliers, including Brazil. Now the Chinese are pulling back.
Boone lays smack in the state’s center, surrounded by miles of row crops, hogs and poultry. Farmland values here fell 12 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to Iowa State University. Worries about the U.S.-China trade war loomed over the recent Farm Progress show, which comes to town every other year.
Equipment dealer Lee Randall jotted down prices at an auction of used tractors and implements at the show. Prices have dropped on trade tensions and low crop prices, he said, shaking his head as a green and yellow Deere & Co combine sold for $118,000 and another fetched $82,000.
“Five years ago you could have added 30 percent to every one of these pieces,” said Randall, whose business, Randall Brothers, is based in Ohio.
Nearby, Brett Begemann, chief operating officer for Bayer Crop Science said farmers were likewise scrutinizing purchases of seeds and chemicals. The trade dispute is making it difficult for Bayer to predict 2019 earnings for its agriculture unit.
A two-hour drive north of Boone in Algona, Iowa, a town of about 5,500 people, farm doldrums are crimping business at the local Deere and Harley-Davidson Inc dealerships, the operators said.
“Ultimately this area lives and dies by the farmer,” said Jim Wilcox, an owner of the Harley store.
Farmers’ woes are showing up on bank balance sheets as well. The proportion of the region’s agricultural loans reported as having repayment problems was up in the second quarter, reaching mid-year levels not seen since 2002, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Rodney Jensen, who farms near Algona, regrets not making deals to sell soybeans from his autumn harvest when prices were higher. Like many, he is storing his crop, waiting for better times.
He worries China will not buy as much U.S. soy as it used to, even if the two nations patch things up.
“It’s been pretty pessimistic around here,” Jensen said.
China slashes U.S. LPG imports amid trade war
Seng Li Peng - reuters
OCTOBER 9, 2018
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - China has choked back on imports of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from the United States, traders and analysts said, turning to the Middle East for extra supplies amid the two countries’ trade dispute.
China bought nearly 3.6 million tonnes of U.S. LPG in 2017, making the United States the country’s second-largest supplier of the fuel used in petrochemicals, as well as for cooking, transport and heating.
However, U.S. imports have come off dramatically over the course of 2018, before stalling completely in late August when China imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on over 300 U.S. goods, including LPG, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.
Consultancy IHS Markit estimates U.S. imports fell to barely 1 million tonnes during the first eight months of 2018, down from about 2.1 million tonnes for the same period last year, said He Yanyu, Executive Director for Natural Gas Liquids.
The fall came as Chinese buyers wound back U.S. purchases of LPG amid uncertainty about the impact of buying product from the United States, said a trader who tracks the fuel.
No U.S. LPG cargoes have landed in China since tariffs were imposed in late August, said Ong Han Wee at consultancy FGE.
“China has stopped shipping in U.S. LPG cargoes as they are now too expensive,” added a second trader who tracks LPG cargoes.
The United States last year accounted for about 20 percent of China’s total LPG imports, which are currently running at about $1 billion a month, based on Thomson Reuters calculation.
The U.S. gap is being filled largely by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, analysts said.
The change comes as prices for the fuel, often a mix of propane and butane, spike in line with higher oil prices.
State-owned Saudi Aramco, whose contract prices are used as benchmarks in Asia, fixed its propane and butane contract prices for October at $655 a tonne, the highest since 2014.
U.S. prices are also rising. The propane price at the Texan Mont Belvieu hub hit its highest since 2014 on Sept. 28 at around 108 cents per gallon before easing to around 104 cents on Oct. 9.
This works out to about $542 a tonne, based on Reuters calculations, but is above the Saudi Aramco price after taking into account freight and terminal charges and the additional 25 percent tariff.
China’s LPG imports rose about 15 percent to nearly 18.3 million tonnes in 2017, driven partly by new petrochemicals plants which use the propane dehydrogenation method to produce the raw material for plastics..
IHS’s He said LPG prices were likely to stay firm in November and December due to higher oil prices and winter demand.
China bought nearly 3.6 million tonnes of U.S. LPG in 2017, making the United States the country’s second-largest supplier of the fuel used in petrochemicals, as well as for cooking, transport and heating.
However, U.S. imports have come off dramatically over the course of 2018, before stalling completely in late August when China imposed an additional 25 percent tariff on over 300 U.S. goods, including LPG, in retaliation for U.S. tariffs.
Consultancy IHS Markit estimates U.S. imports fell to barely 1 million tonnes during the first eight months of 2018, down from about 2.1 million tonnes for the same period last year, said He Yanyu, Executive Director for Natural Gas Liquids.
The fall came as Chinese buyers wound back U.S. purchases of LPG amid uncertainty about the impact of buying product from the United States, said a trader who tracks the fuel.
No U.S. LPG cargoes have landed in China since tariffs were imposed in late August, said Ong Han Wee at consultancy FGE.
“China has stopped shipping in U.S. LPG cargoes as they are now too expensive,” added a second trader who tracks LPG cargoes.
The United States last year accounted for about 20 percent of China’s total LPG imports, which are currently running at about $1 billion a month, based on Thomson Reuters calculation.
The U.S. gap is being filled largely by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, analysts said.
The change comes as prices for the fuel, often a mix of propane and butane, spike in line with higher oil prices.
State-owned Saudi Aramco, whose contract prices are used as benchmarks in Asia, fixed its propane and butane contract prices for October at $655 a tonne, the highest since 2014.
U.S. prices are also rising. The propane price at the Texan Mont Belvieu hub hit its highest since 2014 on Sept. 28 at around 108 cents per gallon before easing to around 104 cents on Oct. 9.
This works out to about $542 a tonne, based on Reuters calculations, but is above the Saudi Aramco price after taking into account freight and terminal charges and the additional 25 percent tariff.
China’s LPG imports rose about 15 percent to nearly 18.3 million tonnes in 2017, driven partly by new petrochemicals plants which use the propane dehydrogenation method to produce the raw material for plastics..
IHS’s He said LPG prices were likely to stay firm in November and December due to higher oil prices and winter demand.
One map shows why Trump's trade war with China could be a disaster for average Americans
Bob Bryan - business insider
Aug 9, 2018, 9:31 AM ET
- President Donald Trump's trade war with China is ongoing, with tariffs flying back and forth.
- While US tariffs currently apply to $34 billion worth of Chinese goods coming into the US, Trump has threatened to apply tariffs to every import from China.
- The trade war could have significant economic consequences, as China is the largest source of imports for 23 states and among the top five sources for 47.
- It could also have political consequences, as 15 of the 23 states that count China as their top import source voted for Trump in 2016.
The Trump administration on Tuesday announced a 25% tariff on $16 billion worth of Chinese exports to the US, adding to the $34 billion worth of Chinese goods already subject to tariffs. Trump has also begun to move forward with tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese goods, and he has effectively threatened that every item from the country could eventually be subject to tariffs.
Tariffs act as a tax on goods coming into the country, meaning goods coming into the US from China would be hit with an additional 25% duty. That makes those goods more expensive, which, in theory, would drive US companies to buy non-Chinese products.
Given that Chinese goods represented just over 21% of all imports coming into the US in 2017, an escalation of the trade war could push up prices for many goods. While the disruptions are likely to be widespread, some states may face more problems than others.
According to data from the US Census Bureau, China is a key source of imports for many states:
- For 23 states, China is the top source of imports.
- For 45 states, China is in the top three.
- China is among the top five import sources for 47 states. (North Dakota, Louisiana, and Delaware are the only exceptions.)
- Of the 23 states that count China as their largest source of imports, Trump won 15 in the 2016 presidential election.
payback funnies
|
|
what you see is what you get!!!
your share, idiot!!!!
