Do Tariffs Matter? Soybean Edition

A year ago, there was some debate (e.g., S. Kopits) whether tariffs on US soybeans would have any impact on US soybean exports — that is since soybeans were highly substitutable, US soybean exports would be redistributed w/o an impact on prices.

From Deutsche Bank today:

As of July, year-to-date cumulative US exports of soybeans were down roughly 11.4
million metric tons compared to the same period last year but soybean exports to
China were down around 17.4 million metric tons.

DB Figure 2 says it all.

Source: Ryan, et al. “Trade Update: (Soy)bean counting,” Deutsche Bank, 13 August 2019.

Had soybeans been perfectly fungible, then US exports would’ve been pretty flat given global exports over the previous 12 months (see page 1, Oilseeds: World Trade and Markets, August 2019).

50 thoughts on “Do Tariffs Matter? Soybean Edition

  1. Moses Herzog

    I think you were way too kind and lenient on Mr. Kopits here. I remember saying in one of my comments (it must have been a subsequent thread to the one linked in the post) that it took an awful lot of gall and audacity to lecture a PhD Economics prof about arbitrage and the effects thereof (which is how Kopits was kind of working the logic on the “no change” in USA soybean exports, was it not??). You know that’s quite insulting if you stop and think about it. It kind of annoyed the hell out of me and I only have my bachelor’s in finance, so I can only imagine how that would reverberate in a PhD’s ears.

    Reply
      1. Barkley Rosser

        BTW, Moses, you also owe baffling an apology. He reiterated completely accurate points he had made in the past (with the support of several other people here now laying low) on how completely wrong you have been on the matter of population genetics and also accurately noting that when you are wrong you act like Trump and just double down and more. This brought forth a pile of vile invective and insults from you completely undeserved.

        You also owe him an apology, although maybe you will apply a condition on doing so, perhaps that he will never ever attempt to defend anything I say that contradicts anything you say ever ever again. That looks to me to be about the way you approach these things. When you are wrong wrong wrong, double down and start inappropriately insulting people.

        Oh, and my offer of peace still stands, but you are too busy looking at yourself in the mirror to accept it, I guess.

        Reply
        1. Moses Herzog

          @ Barkley Junior
          I’m happy that you can remember (however inaccurately) the situation. If you already have dementia doctors assigned to your case, I’m sure they’d be happy to hear this cheerful news. If I was you I’d research which doctor is handling the Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi cases, then you are apt to receive the best care available.

          As for commenter “baffling”—both Joel Osteen and Keith Raniere have many followers and “believers”. I feel sympathy for them more than anything else.

          Reply
        2. Moses Herzog

          @ Barkley Junior
          It is kind of cute (as in 5-year old kind of cute) that you can only name one of your “supporters”. “Baffling” is the same guy who ran to Kopits’ defense on him tagging his website “Princeton”, among other things “Princeton” because, well, he wasn’t sure but he thought Kopits “lived in Princeton”. So we do know this much—“baffling” enjoys taking up the torch for lost causes:
          https://econbrowser.com/archives/2018/04/prognostications-on-economic-policy-uncertainty-and-economic-activity#comment-208298

          Reply
          1. baffling

            if i make an inaccurate statement, and you have evidence of the inaccuracy, please share that information moses. you are welcome to tell me where steven lives if i am incorrect. or you can share with me how my description of the genome was inaccurate. those were not meant be misleading statements, and if not correct please fill me in.
            neither steven nor barkley subscribe to my political views (which actually align more with moses), so not sure why you think i am one of their “followers”? when i disagree with them, i point it out. not always politely, as steven will probably agree. i could name a number of trolls on this site i have greater issues with than those two individuals.

          2. Moses Herzog

            @ baffling
            You know baffling, one side of me thinks “You know, baffling really isn’t a bad guy at rock bottom”. Then there’s another side of me that looks at you as a ghost from the infamous Jim Jones incident who’s come back to visit us all and says in a retrospective toned ghost voice “The strange thing is, I never even liked drinking Kool-Aid”. The second thought tends to win out.

            “baffling”, can you tell me who said these words copy/pasted below discussing our “good man” Mr Kopits, who has basically defended and made excuses for donald trump’s immigration policies, has nothing bad to say about hispanic children being separated from their parents and abused in detention centers, and nothing to say about donald trump working at causing unnecessary deaths in Puerto Rico???
            “rick stryker uses his powers for the dark side-his type are dangerous. but steven does not fall into those categories. his agenda has been biased by his time in hungary, and his affiliation with big oil, but he at least tries to present a defendable position. and i usually don’t see him intentionally distort the facts-that falls into the rick stryker and peaktrader category.”

            Who said that Baffling??? Are you proud of that, right now, in this moment?? I’m only asking here…….

          3. Barkley Rosser

            Moses,

            Regarding Steven Kopits and his location, I note that quite a few consulting firms are located in Princeton, very few, if any , of whose employees have any connection with either the university or the township (or the borough either). There are lots of reasons for doing so including that it is a prestigious address as well as a nice place to live, which I know from having done so for several years myself. Mathematica is there, which has had many economists working for it over a long period of time, with almost none having any connection with Princeton University, although it is handy to have it nearby for various reasons. I happen to know that the late father of Nobelist George Akerlof, Gustav Akerlof, was a chemist who worked for a consulting firm there that also had at most only peripheral connections with the university. You are just being silly making a big fuss about whether SK lives there or not. Who cares and why should it matter one way or the other?

            I have never heard of Joel Osteen or Keith Raniere, so bringing them up certainly does not guilt trip me, although maybe baffling is duly ashamed, not to mention the reference to Jim Jones. Oh, but is pointing out that on the matter of population genetics you are so wrong that you have your head sticking up so far your behind that it is coming out your mouth is like drinking Jim Jones Kook-Aid?

            As it is, while you at one point you wanted Menzie to state his opinion about some of your ranker driveling nonsense, I think one reason he avoids doing so is that he has done so on several occasions, and your response is to simply ignore him and continue with your insane rantings. We have a perfect example right here in these comments, with your completely off-the-wall claim that Nancy Pelosi is “senile.” Menzie stated at one point that he would love to be as senile as she is (which means he does not think she is senile, although you may be too stupid to have figured that out), but has that slowed you down from this idiotic garbage? No. You just show him serious disrespect, even as you fawn all over him on other matters, with your pathetic efforts to the junior assistant blogger here with your endless off-topic comments. No wonder rarely bothers to correct you. It is just a waste of time as you simply quadruple down with your frothing lunacy.

          4. baffling

            moses, if that is your gripe, fine. but don’t use invalid arguments about stevens whereabouts or genome distributions to complain about that statement. that is simply incoherent, but what you have done.

            moses, i tend to disagree with steven on many issues. already stated that. however, i tend to find my interaction with him much less corrupt than somebody like rick stryker. just because i disagree with steven does not mean i must consider him evil. he has not reached that point with me-yet. this is my opinion. rick, on the other hand, has crossed the line. in my view, he has crossed the line into evil behavior, which i abhor. these are my decisions to make, not moses. you can disagree, but you don’t get to make my decisions. if you are angry with me because i pointed out your false arguments on a few items, sorry i can’t help you with that.

          5. Moses Herzog

            @ Barkley Junior
            Your sad effort in logical gymnastics forces me to once again remind you how much your brain has turned to soppy mush. If Menzie was trying to disassociate himself from ME and my other opinions (which Menzie may very well have this desire, I am not a mind reader however hard it is that I may endeavor in the exercise) he would all the more want to tell me I was wrong, say he agreed with your laughable contention that Native America Ancestry is “skewed” in the white American population and give you your gold star or happy face sticker on the self-assigned homework assignment you failed to finish reading. But since the paper specifically states the large sample of population was uniformly distributed it makes it basically impossible for Menzie to do that, as it contradicts with an objective fact.

            I have at least TWICE (I think more) “made an appeal” or a “plea” for Menzie to definitively settle the argument, and that if he did (my metaphorical offering of a large box of Mooncakes to Professor Chinn) that from that point onward I would make no more comments related to the issue of the distribution you claimed was “skewed”. That offer still stands.

          6. Menzie Chinn Post author

            Moses Herzog: I’m not going to weigh in on a subject I have no expertise in. I don’t think you should want me to.

            I *do* think it would be helpful to your arguments if you hewed closer to the topic at hand.

          7. Moses Herzog

            @ Menzie
            I’m gonna try and keep this “clean”. But as regards two commenters on this site, one a little slow in the head, and the other presumably (although a hard sell for me personally) better educated than most and should know better, it’s very difficult for me not to break out in vulgarities describing their general intelligence level. You have a genome. Sometimes that could refer to one person’s genome or it could be used as a term to describe the “average” genome or a “generic” human genome. You also see terms like genome-wide, which is pretty self-explanatory. Do I need to explain genome-wide to the two village idiots or is that term self-explanatory enough for the Virginia man who purports to have his PhD?? This study had a pretty large sample size, if I remember correctly (you’d think i’d have it memorized by now arguing with Dumb and Dumber these last few months) it was 148,789 European American genomes in the study. Now if anyone wants to look at the study—-

            Using the very same research paper that Barkley Rosser quoted, if we use the journal page numbers you can go to the first paragraph of page 50 and read the following that is listed under this major sub-topic headline of the paper starting back on page 49 a few paragraphs under the heading “Robust Estimates of African and Native American Ancestry in African Americans and European Americans”:
            “The inferred segments of African and Native American are UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED across the genome. Although we expect that some of the inferred ancestry might arise from difficulties in assigning ancestry in complex regions of the genome, only a small fraction of the estimated African and Native American ancestry in European Americans can be explained through such biases and is not expected to give rise to any substantial (more than 1%) ancestry from any population.”

            That does not agree with or even be slightly consistent with Barkley Rosser’s assertion that the data are “skewed”. It is also interesting to observe that the word “skewed” is never used once in the paper Barkley Rosser finally got around to quoting after being berated by me to give a link better than “Quora”.

            When Barkley Junior stated that the data (the % of European Americans with Native American ancestry) was “skewed” I was completely baffled how that could be after so many generations of what I term “interracial relations” and that the research paper labels “admixture”. As the paper states the only thing that could drastically change it after that many generations of “admixture” are major historical migration events and or what they term “settlement patterns” such as the “Trail of Tears” migration of the 1830s. Indeed, this had minor effects on the distribution of Native American ancestry, and did NOT make the distribution “skewed” as Barkley Junior had stated on more than one post.

            By the way, the authors of the paper Barkley Rosser quotes estimate that initial admixture between Europeans and Native Americans occurred 12 generations ago,
            Draw your own conclusions.

            This is the EXACT paper braindead in Virginia referenced. You can go to this link and read it on the same link, or you can click in the upper right where it gives a PDF form, which will give you the advantage of being able to reference the EXACT journal page numbers:
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4289685/

          8. Barkley Rosser

            Moses,

            For the ten millionth time, the quotation you keep pulling out of that paper refers to the distribution being EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE GENOME. It does not say it is evenly distributed across the population. Nowhere does it say that despite you fantasizing that somehow it does. As baffling and I (and way back when this was first discussed, several other people, including some you claim to respect but whom i shall not drag in at this point) have repeatedly pointed out, A GENOME IS NOT A POPULATION, and an even distribution across the former does not remotely imply an even distribution across the latter. You might as well claim that because 1+1=2, therefore 2+2=5. Your remarks on this are literally that wrong and that stupid.

            Indeed, as I have also pointed out numerous times, the paper reports that different states have different levels of Native American ancestry within their “white” populations, with this unsurprisingly following a pattern where states having in generally higher rates of Native American populations overall also having higher levels of Native American ancestry in their “white” populations, which makes complete sense. So there are higher rates of Native American ancestry among the “white” populations in Montana and Oklahoma (where Elizabeth Warren is from) than in New Hampshire or Maryland. This is also consistent with the skewed nature of this distribution. If the percentage was evenly distributed across the population nationally, this would be reflected in an even distribution across the states; but that is not what we see.

            Again, a lot of people have earlier on agreed with my argument here, not just baffling, whom you have inappropriately insulted on this matter, even as Menzie has not commented on this specific question for reasons he has made clear and that I said is the case. Never has a single person here agreed with you. You are completely alone in your corner with your dunce cap on your head regarding this.

            Regarding this other matter, Menzie said nothing here now, and I am not going to go digging around the archives to find it, but he indeed did once say after you had carried on about the alleged “senility” of Nancy Pelosi that he wished he could be as senile as she is, or words to that effect. I do not think he should have to repeat this sort of thing, which does indeed clearly imply that he does not think she is senile. You simply ignored it when he did clearly indicate that you are clearly wrong. Again, not only has not a single person here agreed with you on this, no one not ever has. I have even reported that one of the top reporters who covers Congress and has for years (my niece, Erica Werner of WaPo) thinks that Pelosi is actually the smartest person in the entire Congress, all 535 members, and there have been quite a few others who have expressed that opinion. But you somehow either think I am lying or she is lying or those numerous others are lying or who knows what.

            Again, various people here have disagreed with you on both of your incredibly idiotic and massively repeated claims: that somehow an even distribution of a characteristic across a genome implies an even distribution of it across a population (the issue at hand) and also your absurd claim that Nancy Pelosi is “senile.” However, nobody here has agreed with either of these claims, not Menzie, not 2sulgbaits, not pgl, not CoRev, not Steven Kopits, not nobody. You are alone with yourself in your corner with that dunce cap on your head, all alone on both of these issues.

            Now, really, once and for all, Moses, get real and grow up

          9. Moses Herzog

            @ Barkley Junior
            No one (other than maybe you) is dumb enough or senile enough (other than you) to say “the genome is the population”, the genome as mostly referred to in the paper is a very large sample size, taken over a wide geographic area, which strongly represents or indicates characteristics of the population. That is what statistics is about. Or were you sleeping in that part of the class?? You have to be the dumbest [edited MDC] “PhD” that has ever walked this planet.

            The fact you still only have sad little baffling’s support on this, and have gotten no one else’s support on this speaks for itself. And now the PhD needs CoRev’s and Kopits’ backup?? I pray those two support you on this, as I was in doubt you could appear any more feeble, senile, and impotent than you do now—those two might provide the one thing to make your argument more limpy.

            You could always request that commenter pgi let you present your empty argument that the Native American Ancestry in the white American population is “skewed” if she wants to embarrass herself with your drivel on HER blog, nothing could possibly give me more pleasure than to watch that laugh riot unfold. Why don’t you test that topic out on her blog?? Perhaps when you quote the mean average difference between say Oregon and Montana (PLEASE quote the number, for the love of God PLEASE quote the European American numbers on Native American Ancestry in Oregon and Montana) they will be “shocked”.

          10. baffling

            “That does not agree with or even be slightly consistent with Barkley Rosser’s assertion that the data are “skewed”. ”
            you are exactly right moses. it also does not agree with the statement “the sky is blue and the grass is green”. and yet both ideas are true.
            perhaps you can explain what “difficulties in assigning ancestry in complex regions of the genome” is referring to in your quote? is that a population characteristic, or the dna sequence of a typical human locating such characteristics on the chromosome? for those of us a “little slow in the head”, i guess you need to speak slowly and thoroughly for me to understand.

          11. Barkley Rosser

            Moses,

            Last comment by me on this thread.

            Your latest attempt to justify your mistaken claim that a statement that an even distribution on a genome implies an even distribution on a population is outright gibberish, not even of the sort that says that saying 1+1=2 implies that 2+2=5. It is rather like claiming one has a grand unified field theory of physics by saying “The quanta that eviscerate the gravitons haruspicate the speed of light.”

            BTW, not only is my good farmer friend the son of a major figure from the Manhattan Project, but I have lectured at theoretical physics institutes several times and know several top string theorists quite well. I have also published in several physics journals and an entry by me in the last edition of the Palgrave dictionary, the one Menzie has entries in, was on “econophysics.”

            Oh, and it has been my impression that pgl is male, not female, and his blog is also my blog, Econospeak.

  2. Moses Herzog

    One of the better respected banks is saying capital outflows from China are increasing—I assume at least somewhat related to the devaluation. I don’t think this is going to be a serious problem for China in the near term. Still, for economics “hobbyists” might be a fun number to keep an eye on.

    Reply
  3. pgl

    Princeton Stevie began with “Best I can tell, US soybean prices are discounted about 35 cents per bushel of around $9.10, so a 4% price discount, call it. That’s not immaterial”.

    Yea – I’m sure every business would discount a 4% decline in their revenue. Snicker. But wait – prices have fallen a lot more than that. Let’s see – quantities down and prices lower.

    Sounds like an inward shift of the demand curve to me. But not to Nobel Prize winning economist CoRev because it is all about bad weather.

    Reply
  4. CoRev

    Wow! When asking Do Tariffs Matter when focused on only a singular cause, ONLY TARIFFS MATTER, we get some improper, incomplete, and inaccurate analysis. In the referenced report and at the very beginning we find this: With the arrival of African Swine Fever in China in mid-2018 along with the ongoing trade dispute, a steady decline in China’s soybean import volume has been observed with imports currently forecast to reach 83 million tons in 2018/19, 11 million tons below 2017/18. If not for the increase in demand from other markets, spurred in part by lower prices, the current trend in global soybean trade would have turned negative.”
    As was shown in the two charts presented.

    Highlighting the inaccuracy of Menzie’s ONLY TARIFFS MATTER hypothesisf is also found in the beginning of the referenced article:
    “If not for the increase in demand from other markets, spurred in part by lower prices, the current trend in global soybean trade would have turned negative. Consequently, this slowing demand, coupled with large crops and stock has led to soybean prices running 10 percent below even a few years ago.”

    Supply and Demand is a basic concept of economics. Please read a new text book listing the causes why these both can change that does not say ONLY TARIFFS MATTER. Or better still stop misinterpreting what a comment meant: “whether tariffs on US soybeans would have any impact on US soybean exports”, from this:
    “…First, southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere crops are counter-seasonal, ie, when the Chinese want to buy during the US summer / fall, there will be little in the way of Brazil crops to offset. They will pretty much have to buy a good amount of US crops, tariffs or no.

    Second, buyers are changing their purchase patterns, with Europeans dumping Brazil imports for imports from the US. …” Look at your own chart and the June thru Feb surge in US exports, ans expected by S Kopits, even in light of the China’s reduced demand due to ASF and the tariffs.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      “Supply and Demand is a basic concept of economics.”

      Well yea but having read your incessant nonsense – you have not grasped even this basic concept. Tell us again how BAD weather lowers prices by shifting the supply curve inwards.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      CoRev is a little behind in his reading on world soybean production:

      https://beef2live.com/story-world-soybean-production-ranking-country-0-164836

      “The 2019/20 global oilseed supply and demand forecasts include lower production and stocks compared to last month. Global oilseed production is projected at 586.0 million tons, down 11.7 million mostly on lower soybean production for the United States. Soybean production is also reduced for Canada and Ukraine. Brazil is projected to be the largest producer of soybeans in the world followed by the United States & Argentina. The United States is projected to produce 104.6 million metric tons of soybeans, down 8.3 million metric tons from last year.”

      Soybean production in the US is way down but Brazil is producing more soybeans. Note while world production fell by only 2% – US production fell by 8%. Huh! I guess Brazil has found a way of selling soybeans to sick pigs, which makes them all better!

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Pgl, get supply and demand wrong again. “Soybean production in the US is way down but Brazil is producing more soybeans. Note while world production fell by only 2% – US production fell by 8%. …” Note, from the very beginning of this long historical thread i cautioned on how weather effected yield. Only pgl thinks yield = demand: “Huh! I guess Brazil has found a way of selling soybeans to sick pigs, which makes them all better!”

        Please, please read a book on farming. You desperately need it.

        Reply
        1. Dave

          CoRev writes “Brazil is producing more soybeans”

          Are we on the brink of a breakthrough in understanding? Is this a teachable moment? We shall see. . . .

          CoRev, just why do you think Brazil is producing so much more soybeans? Any idea? Is it ASF? The weather, which is impossible to predict?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            ASF lowers the demand curve leading to lower prices so that cannot be it – except in the weirdness of the advanced CoRev model.

            Oh wait – the tariffs were imposed on U.S. goods lowering the price to U.S. farmers but as China buys more soybeans from Brazil, Brazilian farmers are getting a higher price so they produce more.

            See how easy basic economics is. But of course we are not trained in the advanced CoRev model!

        2. pgl

          Any freshman who has taken economics would fall on the floor laughing at your latest. One needs to look at both quantities and prices. If you latest “thesis” is that BAD weather lowered production by shifting the supply curve inwards then soybean prices would be higher than they were over a year ago. Earth to CoRev for the millionth time, your thesis does NOT explain low soybean prices.

          Besides – where was the bad weather? Here? Brazil? Both? OK an inward shift of the US supply curve would lead to more Brazilian production by raising the world price moving along the Brazilian supply curve. But once again just to remind the babbling bozo named CoRev – our host has been documenting lower prices not higher prices.

          Huh? Lower prices and lower quantities sounds a lot like an inward shift of the demand curve. Now that is basic economics. Who the heck what weirdness exist in that CoRev model you never bother to write down. Troll on old clueless wonder!

          Reply
          1. CoRev

            Pgl, still fails elementary econ. “If you latest “thesis” is that BAD weather lowered production by shifting the supply curve inwards then soybean prices would be higher than they were over a year ago. ” Only he can misinterpret basic agriculture data – “prices would be higher than they were over a year ago.” You’ve again confused yield/production/supply with demand. ASF, ASF, ASF has also impacted ______ you fill in the term if you can).

            Please re-read Fama, and his time try to understand the concepts of his efficient-market hypothesis. His concept has clearly confused you.

            Or better still read a farming book to understand how and why DEMAND is also needed to drive decision making.

    3. Dave

      CoRev writes a bunch of nonsense again. CoRev, you clearly did not read the oilseeds report. Global soybean trade is flat, even after all your weather and ASF events. What is down down down is U.S. soybean exports. BIg time. U.S. prices are way down AND exports are way down. Weather and ASF would affect the market as a whole. Only the U.S. is playing, and losing, the tariff nonsense with China.

      Reply
      1. CoRev

        Dave, are you pgl in disguise? You are just as ignorant. You claimed: “Global soybean trade is flat, even after all your weather and ASF events. ” But, the oilseeds report clearly said: “Soybean imports are forecast at 148.9 million, down from July, but still higher than 2018/19. …Global oilseed exports are down 300,000 tons from last month but still represent 1.2 percent growth over 2018/19.

        Instead of making yourself look foolish try reading and understanding. Also read a farming book

        Reply
        1. pgl

          Every one here is me in disguise as every one here is falling on the floor laughing at your incessant stupidity. Hey even your own dog is laughing at you. Oh wait – I decided to dress up as your dog just to haunt you. But you better feed me as I may just bite you!

          Reply
        2. pgl

          CoRev does not bother to provide a link to this oilseeds report so permit me:
          https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf

          His quote was truncated. It was in a box called “Projection for 2019/2020”:

          “Soybean imports are forecast at 148.9 million, down from July, but still higher than 2018/19. Brazil is projected to remain the leading soybean exporter in 2019/20 at 76.5 million tons.”

          I can see why a Trump sycophant would failed to mention the 2nd sentence here. Brazil has passed the U.S. as the leading exporter of soybeans. On the previous page there is a chart on how U.S. soybean prices are down and are expected to stay low. I see why a Trump sycophant would omit this as well.

          Reply
          1. pgl

            These reports are produced each month. I went back in time to see what they were writing back in October 2018:

            https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/tx31qh68h/5t34sp101/g732dd02n/oilseeds.pdf

            ‘Continued U.S.-China Tension Affecting Soybean Trade in 2018/19’

            That is just the title and check out the first graph showing the dramatic decline in our exports of soybeans to China! First paragraph:

            “As of the October 4 U.S. Exports Sales, U.S. soybean outstanding sales are below last year owing to fewer sales to China, which are currently 85 percent below last season. Anemic weekly sales and significantly lower outstanding sales indicate that there is not much interest in purchasing U.S. soybeans by China, primarily due to its decision to include soybeans on the list of key U.S. commodities that are subject to retaliatory tariffs. U.S. soybean exports to China typically reach their lowest levels in summer and then build strength as harvest progresses. However, a large pullback in Chinese demand for U.S. soybeans appears likely to continue well into 2018/19.”

            Page 4:

            “U.S. soybean export bids in September, FOB Gulf, averaged $312/ton, down $23 from August. In comparison, FOB Brazil Paranagua averaged $397/ton, up $3. FOB Argentina Up River averaged $380/ton, down $3.”

            These are very informative reports. Do not trust CoRev to accurately convey what they have said over the last year. Not CoRev’s job. His job is to flat out lie for Team Trump.

          2. CoRev

            Pgl, kindly repeats Menzie’s reference in the base article, proving again he failed to read and understand what was originally written.

            Worse, he compounds his lazy ignorance by repeating what has been the subject for well over a year now: ” On the previous page there is a chart on how U.S. soybean prices are down and are expected to stay low. ” Down originally due to tariffs and will continue so until they are lifted. He follows up this ignorance with even more commentary: “I went back in time to see what they were writing back in October 2018:…”

            Has he even been following the flow of these discussion? NO! Just trolling.

        3. Dave

          CoRev thinks he has a point when he writes ” 1.2 percent growth over 2018/19″

          That’s flat, compared to what is happening in the U.S. Moreover, you point to global *growth*. Where is this massive ASF effect you keep blathering about?

          Reply
          1. pgl

            Notice he is talking about global exports. OK – Brazil is exporting a lot more while the U.S. is clearly exporting less. And CoRev explains this with ASF? Lord – he is really stupid!

          2. CoRev

            Dave, are you that ignorant? “Where is this massive ASF effect you keep blathering about?” you’ve convinced me you are pgl in disguise or just another pgl clone, unable to read and understand.

            I’ll copy this whole paragraph from Menzie’s referenced oilseeds Report in hopes you will improve your skills:
            “From the 10 years prior to 2018/19, global soybean exports nearly doubled in volume with annual growth averaging 7.5 million tons. Much of this growth was centered on China where import growth averaged 5.6 million tons annually, accounting for nearly 80 percent of soybean trade growth. With the arrival of African Swine Fever in China in mid-2018 along with the ongoing trade dispute, a steady decline in China’s soybean import volume has been observed with imports currently forecast to reach 83 million tons in 2018/19, 11 million tons below 2017/18. If not for the increase in demand from other markets, spurred in part by lower prices, the current trend in global soybean trade would have turned negative. ”

            I won’t further belabor your poor confused mind. It appears incapable of understanding basics of supply and demand (not curves but actual) shifts. Much like pgl.

  5. pgl

    When I think of soybeans grown in Argentina or Brazil, I think of Bunge Limited. If Princeton Stevie knows anything about this issue, I’m sure he knows that are publicly traded. But I guess our Princeton Policy guru has never bothered to review their 10-K filing. It notes its annual sales are nearly $45 billion per year but its operating profits are only $765 million per year. That’s right boys and girls – Bunge’s operating margin is a mere 1.7%.

    That 4% price decline which Princeton Stevie dismisses as no big deal could easily wipe out Bunge’s profits entirely. And Bunge is not exactly unique as farming is a very competitive business. Yea I realize that CoRev thinks U.S. farmers will still flourish under this trade war but that’s only because we taxpayers are bailing them out.

    Reply
  6. pgl

    Your remind me of the “adults” in a Charlie Brown episode. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH! Have you read John Muth’s paper on Rational Expectations? Of course not because if you grasped what he wrote – you would realize how stupid your incessant gibberish really is.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      Huh – was supposed to be a reply to CoRev. Reading his blovating has made my computer do some odd things of late!

      Reply
  7. joseph

    Corev says that that price decreases are indication of a HIATUS! And it’s due to sunspots, uh, I mean swine fever. And prices always fluctuate, nothing new, just like they did in the Little Ice Age.

    I detect a pattern here.

    Reply
  8. pgl

    Only a Trump sycophant can translate “Do Tariffs Matter” into “Only Tariffs Matters”. But that is what the #1 Trump sycophant (CoRev) is doing here. CoRev’s real agenda – since weather and swine flu might at times affect the market price of soybeans a bit – we should conclude that tariffs do not matter.

    I know – this claim is stupid. But it is necessary for Team Trump as he can never take the blame for anything. By this logic – assault weapons do not matter, global warming does not matter. Saying Latinos are welfare queens who rape white people does not matter. Etc., etc. MAGA!

    Reply
  9. pgl

    “CoRev
    August 15, 2019 at 5:29 am
    Dave, are you that ignorant? “Where is this massive ASF effect you keep blathering about?” you’ve convinced me you are pgl in disguise or just another pgl clone, unable to read and understand.”

    Not sure whether to laugh at this nonstop hysteria from the CoRev or simply wait for the men in the white coats come to take old CoRev to the rubber room. The fool lost it a long time ago. Of course so has his boss – Donald J. Trump! One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was an interesting movie but to see this in real life is simply troubling!

    Reply
  10. pgl

    BTW – China may be importing fewer soybeans overall but I guess CoRev has been ordered by his boss never to admit that Brazil has managed to export more soybeans to China. Of course the massive drop in China’s imports of soybeans is why these two statements can be true at the same time. And that is the whole point – China has placed tariffs on US soybeans but not on Brazilian soybeans.

    A point CoRev hopes to bury in another flood of misleading and angry rants. Wait a second – we know who CoRev really is. He is Donald J. Trump posing here as a Trump sycophant! Now I get his insanity!

    Reply
  11. Expat

    Is there really a serious thread here with economic students debating commodity prices by citing Fama and talking about shifting supply and demand equilibria?
    Soybeans are a commodity, not a theory. The market is narrow and concentrated. Try getting a real commodity trader involved in the discussions so you theorists can learn a thing or two.

    Reply
    1. pgl

      If your commodity trader has not read Fama – let me know what positions he is taking. I’ll short whatever he is long on etc. and make a fortune! BTW – have your little trader watch Trading Places. The ending is a classic!

      Reply
  12. Dave

    CoRev shows his utter lack of understanding by copying the “whole paragraph from Menzie’s referenced oilseeds Report ”

    You know CoRev, nothing in that report strikes me as incorrect. I wish you could write so clearly. Of course, what you fail to understand is that it proves my point and disproves yours. Thanks for highlighting your complete and utter incompetence.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.