Shortforbob

tariffs and shipping

Recommended Posts

All these trade tariffs..what happens to the ships already loaded with plastic junk or Soybeans...loaded and at sea.

Do they get paid? have they already bean paid? or do they choke up the docks on arrival laying their with goods no one will pay to unload?

Anyone understand how the commercial shipping industry works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Chinese media a ship with 70,000 tons of American soybeans was rushing to get into a Chinese port before the soybean tariff was imposed - at midnight on a particular day. It arrived four hours late so the tariff came into effect. The report said that the cargo was dumped at sea. This seems highly unlikely since the soybeans could still be sold elsewhere without tariff, perhaps at a lower price. Also, and someone can correct me on this, I don't think a typical bulk carrier can dump its own cargo. I think they are unloaded by a shoreside facility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

According to Chinese media a ship with 70,000 tons of American soybeans was rushing to get into a Chinese port before the soybean tariff was imposed - at midnight on a particular day. It arrived four hours late so the tariff came into effect. The report said that the cargo was dumped at sea. This seems highly unlikely since the soybeans could still be sold elsewhere without tariff, perhaps at a lower price. Also, and someone can correct me on this, I don't think a typical bulk carrier can dump its own cargo. I think they are unloaded by a shoreside facility. 

Yeah it sounds like bullshit to me.

As for shipping, I don't know a lot but I do know there's various ways to specify when payment is due. FOB - free on board - goods are loaded, you pay & they're yours. FIS - free in store - ownership transfers on delivery to your store (I think). And a lot of variants.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

According to Chinese media a ship with 70,000 tons of American soybeans was rushing to get into a Chinese port before the soybean tariff was imposed - at midnight on a particular day. It arrived four hours late so the tariff came into effect. The report said that the cargo was dumped at sea. This seems highly unlikely since the soybeans could still be sold elsewhere without tariff, perhaps at a lower price. Also, and someone can correct me on this, I don't think a typical bulk carrier can dump its own cargo. I think they are unloaded by a shoreside facility. 

Dunno about dumping V finding another buyer..these ships have shedules..you cant hang around with a cargo of soybeens  with 100 tonnes of mung beens waiting for a lift to Tokyo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Dunno about dumping V finding another buyer..these ships have shedules..you cant hang around with a cargo of soybeens  with 100 tonnes of mung beens waiting for a lift to Tokyo.

Someone has already paid for those beans before they got put on the ship and someone has paid for the shipping.  I believe that the ship will still get paid until it is unloaded and available for another cargo.

Apparently the tariff is already priced in to soybean prices.

Unsurprisingly, CBOT soybeans came under significant pressure following the initial announcement from China back in April that it would retaliate to any US tariffs. CBOT soybean prices have fallen by a little over 21% since mid-April, trading below $8.50/bu, levels last seen back in 2008. In fact, CBOT has traded down to levels where, even if we take into consideration the 25% import tariff, US soybeans are still workable into the Chinese market. At the moment, we estimate that import parity is around $8.70/bu, compared to the CBOT November 2018 contract trading at around $8.56/bu.

Meanwhile, the Chinese domestic soybean futures market has strangely also traded lower, falling by around 7% since mid-April. If we look at the move in the domestic market in USD terms, prices have fallen by almost 12%, reflecting the depreciation that we have seen in the CNY recently. It appears that the domestic market started pricing in these tariffs earlier in the year, with domestic futures rallying strongly over 1Q18.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Someone has already paid for those beans before they got put on the ship and someone has paid for the shipping.  I believe that the ship will still get paid until it is unloaded and available for another cargo.

Apparently the tariff is already priced in to soybean prices.

I dont understand trade stuff too well, but from your link, this bit caught my eye

The latest data shows that cumulative sales to China are down 20% YoY. However, it's important to point out that exports started falling behind last season prior to the escalation in the trade spat. There are about 1.14mt of outstanding sales in the current marketing year, which shows China as the destination. Given the introduction of the tariff, we are likely to see these sales cancelled, or at least the destination changed, with an incentive for Chinese buyers to source Brazilian soybeans, a situation which will keep Brazilian farmers happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised sean hasn't posted the article on this from the front page of yesterday's nyt business section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most shipping is done CIF. The shipper pays to the foreign dock. Inland freight, customs clearance, tariffs, taxes and such are the buyer’s problem. Shipper is paid from a bank Letter of Credit (escrow) when it hits the dock. The freight company is already paid, too. So it is usually the buyer who is on the hook. And the port will go after the local buyer for storage or disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daddle said:

Most shipping is done CIF. The shipper pays to the foreign dock. Inland freight, customs clearance, tariffs, taxes and such are the buyer’s problem. Shipper is paid from ‘escrow’ when it hits the dock. The freight company is already paid, too. So it is usually the buyer who is on the hook. And the port will go after the local buyer for storage or disposal.

Thanks..I think I got that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read -

I'm going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists on flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists on flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.

Beautiful 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Interesting read -

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

 

but - can china fill it's jonesing for soy beans without buying from the us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Round one to China. They are buying the cargo at sea for state reserves..can trump do that with a ship full of pet rocks?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/u-s-soybean-vessel-was-loaded-for-china-just-before-duties

How is that a win or loss for anyone?  The US farmer still sold their soybeans at market price.  The way futures markets work he probably sold them last year.

The chinese tariff doesn't get paid to the US, it's collected by the Chinese at time of import.  Just as the US tariff is collected by the US at import.  In fact, a lot of ports have bonded storage facilities where no duty or tariff is collected until it leave bonded storage for delivery in-country.

If you looked at your cite, the tariff will be paid by the buyer.  If the state buys it for reserves they will reimburse the buyer for the tariff.  If not, the buyer will need to sell at a loss through the action of the Chinese government in imposing a tariff on imported soybeans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

but - can china fill it's jonesing for soy beans without buying from the us?

Brazil's buying them from the USA..prolly to sell to China :D no tariff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

Brazil's buying them from the USA..prolly to sell to China :D no tariff

And, the guy that bought the futures contract gets paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hermetic said:

but - can china fill it's jonesing for soy beans without buying from the us?

NYT story about China, soybeans, US etc.. The simple answer to your question is "no," at least not in the short term.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/business/china-trade-war-soybeans.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they do go short of a few things...this is CHINA FFS.

There's living people survived the long march..they despise the USA somehow I don't think Trump's factored this into his :trade War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Round one to China. They are buying the cargo at sea for state reserves..can trump do that with a ship full of pet rocks?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/u-s-soybean-vessel-was-loaded-for-china-just-before-duties

I wonder if this is the same ship mentioned in the Chinese report. The cargo weight is similar and the ship was going to Dalian. Perhaps all, or most, soybeans go to Dalian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

Interesting read -

I'm going to get a little wonky and write about Donald Trump and negotiations. For those who don't know, I'm an adjunct professor at Indiana University - Robert H. McKinney School of Law and I teach negotiations. Okay, here goes.

Trump, as most of us know, is the credited author of "The Art of the Deal," a book that was actually ghost written by a man named Tony Schwartz, who was given access to Trump and wrote based upon his observations. If you've read The Art of the Deal, or if you've followed Trump lately, you'll know, even if you didn't know the label, that he sees all dealmaking as what we call "distributive bargaining."

Distributive bargaining always has a winner and a loser. It happens when there is a fixed quantity of something and two sides are fighting over how it gets distributed. Think of it as a pie and you're fighting over who gets how many pieces. In Trump's world, the bargaining was for a building, or for construction work, or subcontractors. He perceives a successful bargain as one in which there is a winner and a loser, so if he pays less than the seller wants, he wins. The more he saves the more he wins.

The other type of bargaining is called integrative bargaining. In integrative bargaining the two sides don't have a complete conflict of interest, and it is possible to reach mutually beneficial agreements. Think of it, not a single pie to be divided by two hungry people, but as a baker and a caterer negotiating over how many pies will be baked at what prices, and the nature of their ongoing relationship after this one gig is over.

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

One of the risks of distributive bargaining is bad will. In a one-time distributive bargain, e.g. negotiating with the cabinet maker in your casino about whether you're going to pay his whole bill or demand a discount, you don't have to worry about your ongoing credibility or the next deal. If you do that to the cabinet maker, you can bet he won't agree to do the cabinets in your next casino, and you're going to have to find another cabinet maker.

There isn't another Canada.

So when you approach international negotiation, in a world as complex as ours, with integrated economies and multiple buyers and sellers, you simply must approach them through integrative bargaining. If you attempt distributive bargaining, success is impossible. And we see that already.

Trump has raised tariffs on China. China responded, in addition to raising tariffs on US goods, by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia. The effect is not only to cause tremendous harm to US farmers, but also to increase Russian revenue, making Russia less susceptible to sanctions and boycotts, increasing its economic and political power in the world, and reducing ours. Trump saw steel and aluminum and thought it would be an easy win, BECAUSE HE SAW ONLY STEEL AND ALUMINUM - HE SEES EVERY NEGOTIATION AS DISTRIBUTIVE. China saw it as integrative, and integrated Russia and its soybean purchase orders into a far more complex negotiation ecosystem.

Trump has the same weakness politically. For every winner there must be a loser. And that's just not how politics works, not over the long run.

For people who study negotiations, this is incredibly basic stuff, negotiations 101, definitions you learn before you even start talking about styles and tactics. And here's another huge problem for us.

Trump is utterly convinced that his experience in a closely held real estate company has prepared him to run a nation, and therefore he rejects the advice of people who spent entire careers studying the nuances of international negotiations and diplomacy. But the leaders on the other side of the table have not eschewed expertise, they have embraced it. And that means they look at Trump and, given his very limited tool chest and his blindly distributive understanding of negotiation, they know exactly what he is going to do and exactly how to respond to it.

From a professional negotiation point of view, Trump isn't even bringing checkers to a chess match. He's bringing a quarter that he insists on flipping for heads or tails, while everybody else is studying the chess board to decide whether its better to open with Najdorf or Grünfeld.

Outstanding explanation! So you are not a bus driver, or at least you have two jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's an interesting article.  it would be a better article if the writer had done his homework first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

And, the guy that bought the futures contract gets paid.

I am sure your average soybean farmer, who will lose his ass on this move, will be happy to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, hermetic said:

it's an interesting article.  it would be a better article if the writer had done his homework first

Specifically, what did this author get wrong?  Do tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Interesting read -

The problem with Trump is that he sees only distributive bargaining in an international world that requires integrative bargaining. He can raise tariffs, but so can other countries. He can't demand they not respond. There is no defined end to the negotiation and there is no simple winner and loser. There are always more pies to be baked. Further, negotiations aren't binary. China's choices aren't (a) buy soybeans from US farmers, or (b) don't buy soybeans. They can also (c) buy soybeans from Russia, or Argentina, or Brazil, or Canada, etc. That completely strips the distributive bargainer of his power to win or lose, to control the negotiation.

 

 China responded by dropping all its soybean orders from the US and buying them from Russia.

read the nyt article.

the statements above are false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hermetic said:

read the nyt article.

the statements above are false

Sorry, I've used up my monthly allotment of free articles from the NYT.  If you are zeroing in on the point he made about China only buying from Russia, you seem to be missing the bigger picture.  According to Bloomberg, China has stopped buying soybeans from the US.

How is President Trump's negotiating style not as the author describes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
17 minutes ago, hermetic said:

read the nyt article.

the statements above are false

Sorry, I've used up my monthly allotment of free articles from the NYT.  If you are zeroing in on the point he made about China only buying from Russia, you seem to be missing the bigger picture.  According to Bloomberg, China has stopped buying soybeans from the US.

How is President Trump's negotiating style not as the author describes?

the negotiating style is described well

the example of soy beans is flat out wrong - china cannot replace what it used to buy from the usa with another source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the negotiating style is described well

the example of soy beans is flat out wrong - china cannot replace what it used to buy from the usa with another source.

It certainly can, just not immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the negotiating style is described well

the example of soy beans is flat out wrong - china cannot replace what it used to buy from the usa with another source.

Looks like they are well on their way to doing just that, if they aren't already there.

I am sure getting tired of all this "winning".  How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Monkey said:
13 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the negotiating style is described well

the example of soy beans is flat out wrong - china cannot replace what it used to buy from the usa with another source.

It certainly can, just not immediately. 

of course.  but a billion bushels is a lot to re-source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Looks like they are well on their way to doing just that, if they aren't already there.

I am sure getting tired of all this "winning".  How about you?

where are they getting it from? you got a cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

where are they getting it from? you got a cite?

This sure ain't peanuts.  From the Bloomberg article.  I am sure the farmers are pleased about this turn of events.

In the two weeks ended April 19, China canceled a net 62,690 metric tons of U.S. soybean purchases for the marketing year that ends Aug. 31, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. At this time of year, South American countries typically complete their harvests and become the dominant shippers for several months. Brazil’s lead on global exports is expected to widen to a record in the 2017-2018 season as it sells 73.1 million tons abroad versus 56.2 million from the U.S., the USDA estimates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:
5 minutes ago, hermetic said:

where are they getting it from? you got a cite?

This sure ain't peanuts.  From the Bloomberg article.  I am sure the farmers are pleased about this turn of events.

In the two weeks ended April 19, China canceled a net 62,690 metric tons of U.S. soybean purchases for the marketing year that ends Aug. 31, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. At this time of year, South American countries typically complete their harvests and become the dominant shippers for several months. Brazil’s lead on global exports is expected to widen to a record in the 2017-2018 season as it sells 73.1 million tons abroad versus 56.2 million from the U.S., the USDA estimates.

how much of the shortfall, created by cancelling us imports, is made up by additional imports from south america?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

how much of the shortfall, created by cancelling us imports, is made up by additional imports from south america?

That sounds an awful lot like "Okay, sure.  This is hurting US farmers.  But, how MUCH is it really hurting them."

Face it - this guy has no fucking clue what he is doing.  Don't be a knee-jerk defender of President Trump.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China imports 92 million metric tons of soybeans each year. 

Russias total production is 3.87 Million MT.

They aren't going to make up the difference.  Somebody else will.  That will take soybeans that might be exported elsewhere.

If China moves their buys to South America somebody else will need to buy ours.

worldsoybeanproduciton2009.jpg

 

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

China imports 92 million metric tons of soybeans each year. 

Russias total production is 3.87 Million MT.

They aren't going to make up the difference.  Somebody else will.  That will take soybeans that might be exported elsewhere.

If China moves their buys to South America somebody else will need to buy ours.

worldsoybeanproduciton2009.jpg

 

 

image.png

So, what will happen to the price of our soybeans if we have to go shopping for another buyer?

Will those farmers from flyover country be happy with all this winning from President Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

So, what will happen to the price of our soybeans if we have to go shopping for another buyer?

Will those farmers from flyover country be happy with all this winning from President Trump?

If they are anything like their brethren on the Chesapeake Bay who crab for a living; they will bemoan their loss of income but still support Trump.  Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The bigger point to all this is that consumers everywhere are going to lose.

I get that

but china uses soy beans in a lot of their production (pigs and oil), if this hurts them for one or two growing seasons - good.  the more it hurts china the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hermetic said:

I get that

but china uses soy beans in a lot of their production (pigs and oil), if this hurts them for one or two growing seasons - good.  the more it hurts china the better

I get that, too - but, before we consider that a good thing, we need to see how the calculus shows that hurting China in this matter will result in movement towards our national objective, considering also the immediate domestic repercussions of this short-sighted venture.   I doubt that that calculus exists. 

I don't think that Trump has got any plan beyond "We're bigger - we'll squeeze them 'til they say Uncle".  We aren't bigger than everyone combined - and his unilateral actions are going to create unlikely partnerships that band together to further their own interests while damaging the US.  The only thing he's right about in all this is recognizing the trade imbalance.  His approach to correcting the imbalance is akin to using a wrekcing ball to cut out a soft plank on the bottom of your boat.   It'll get rid of the soft wood, without a doubt, but, it's not likely to leave enough framing to fasten in the good wood. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed.

however, I'd bet the calculus does exist.  it just might be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hermetic said:

however, I'd bet the calculus does exist.  it just might be wrong

if you were half as smart as you think you are you'd know that Trump never looked at the calculus when he made the decision.

but this hermetic being hermetic; shoulder hop and cherry pick and bullshit with one liners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The only thing he's right about in all this is recognizing the trade imbalance

he's wrong about that too at least the "trade deficit" he's always bitching about. by wrong I mean what it is, why it exists, and how to fix it.

the trade barriers that exist, yeah, they suck. I doubt he'll make things "better" for the us short or long term though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soybeans are trivial to grow. About 3 months to harvest. Win to Brazil.

I suppose China’s centrally controlled market can easily route tariff receipts directly to the parties affected by the US tariffs. Export subsidies so the steel makers can lower prices, for example. Not so easy in the USA.

The only winners are those on the sidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

So, what will happen to the price of our soybeans if we have to go shopping for another buyer?

Will those farmers from flyover country be happy with all this winning from President Trump?

Buyers generally do the shopping and it's consumption that drives the market.  China will remain a huge buyer.  If they buy from brazil, the brazilian soybeans aren't available for other buyers.  If they can't buy from Brazil they have to go onto the open market to buy and we will have the stock to sell into the movement of soybeans between Brazil and China.

There is a global market for soybeans.  The US tops the world in production but we aren't a huge market.

China buys almost half of the worlds soybeans

 

If they bought all of the worlds exportabvle production outside the US they would not charge their consumers the tariff. But, they would still have to buy some from us and collect the tariff from their citizens. (it is paid by the consumer, you understand)

That means that everybody else in the world would have nowhere to go for their soybeans except locally or from us and unless their government puts a tariff on soybeans their consumers would pay nothing and the Chinese government would collect nothing.

It's a capitalist thing.  You wouldn't understand

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, daddle said:

Soybeans are trivial to grow. About 3 months to harvest. Win to Brazil.

I suppose China’s centrally controlled market can easily route tariff receipts directly to the parties affected by the US tariffs. Export subsidies so the steel makers can lower prices, for example. Not so easy in the USA.

The only winners are those on the sidelines.

The US doesn't charge the tariff to export soybeans.  The Chinese government collects the tariff when the beans are imported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

The US doesn't charge the tariff to export soybeans.  The Chinese government collects the tariff when the beans are imported.

Yup, the Chinese collect the soybean tariffs and subsidize the steel exports affected bt US tariffs, for example. Simple and effective. In the USA, not so easy with a plodding divided congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, daddle said:

Yup, the Chinese collect the soybean tariffs and subsidize the steel exports affected bt US tariffs, for example. Simple and effective. In the USA, not so easy with a plodding divided congress.

Uhhh, there are also tariffs being charged on Steel imports by the US.  But, China is already subsidizing and dumping steel.  Even the EU has noticed

You might want to kinda look around the world and see where tariffs are being charged, on what and how much.

I know that March was a long time ago but

March 6, 2018 / 7:27 AM / 4 months ago

EU extends duties on stainless steel pipes from China

Reuters Staff

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union extended anti-dumping duties of between 48.3 and 71.9 percent on stainless steel pipes from China for a further five years, the EU’s Official Journal said on Tuesday.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

he's wrong about that too at least the "trade deficit" he's always bitching about. by wrong I mean what it is, why it exists, and how to fix it.

the trade barriers that exist, yeah, they suck. I doubt he'll make things "better" for the us short or long term though.

On this point - I think we agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hermetic said:

agreed.

however, I'd bet the calculus does exist.  it just might be wrong

If it does - I'd certainly like to see it.  The existence of a plan with assumptions, constraints and contingencies would at least reassure me that we're being guided by something more than the play for the next soundbite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now