How gullible is
Reuters?
China will likely hit $50 billion in purchases of U.S. agricultural products, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday after earlier announcing that he would roll back scheduled tariffs on Chinese imports as Washington and Beijing finalized an initial trade deal.
That was their opening paragraph.
Fortune had a different take:
The Markets Have Spoken: Phase One Trade Deal Between the U.S. and China Is “No Victory” - From Shanghai to London, stocks rallied on Friday morning as a “Phase One trade deal” was reached between China and the Trump Administration—that is, until the details were announced. By noon in New York, the major indices still trading were swooning, with the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average in negative territory, ceding big early gains. What happened? ... Later in the day, the markets' exuberance was largely dashed by what's not in the deal. "I think we're pretty much where we were in May," says Usha Haley, W. Frank Barton distinguished chair in international business and professor of management at Wichita State University.
From 2012 to 2014, we exported less than $20 billion of agricultural goods according to this
reliable source. In 2017, this figure had declined to less than $17 billion while it dropped to less than $7 billion by 2018 thanks to Trump’s stupid trade war. All this deal accomplished was to temporarily avoid even more trade war stupidity. The stock market does not believe there will be any real improvement in the trading between the U.S. and China. Even if there was a complete reversal of the damage done to our agricultural sector from Trump’s idiotic trade policy – the best we could hope for would be $20 billion in agricultural exports to China and not some absurd $50 billion from our Liar-in-Chief. Of course, Lawrence Kudlow is supposed speak today so maybe he can mansplain to us how Trump’s stupid trade policy will lead to some massive agricultural boom.
Update: On occasion one gets a comment that is too good to pass up:
"From 2012 to 2014, we exported less than $20 billion of agricultural goods according to this reliable source." That is yearly, if I understand. What period of time does the agreement cover, so that $50 billion could make sense? Surely not in a year.
Brilliant and here was my reply:
I was referring to exports per year with that near $20 billion. But Trump's babbling? Huh! So maybe Trump has one of those Leninist 5-year plans where we declare success if annual exports are only $10 billion per year. Yes Trump does follow Putin's lead!
"From 2012 to 2014, we exported less than $20 billion of agricultural goods according to this reliable source."
ReplyDeleteThat is yearly, if I understand. What period of time does the agreement cover, so that $50 billion could make sense? Surely not in a year.
Anon - interesting comment. I was referring to exports per year with that near $20 billion. But Trump's babbling? Huh!
ReplyDeleteSo maybe Trump has one of those Leninist 5-year plans where we declare success if annual exports are only $10 billion per year. Yes Trump does follow Putin's lead!
pgl,
ReplyDeleteI largley agree with your post. Have been planning to post on this plus more. About to do so, view it as aan estension of your post.
Thank you, PGL. So far, reading the NYT and WAPO on this US-China trade agreement carefully I find no $50 billion in added agricultural purchases mentioned. The figure, wherever it may be found, has to refer to several years of purchases and likely be provisional in any case since China has agreements with other countries already and is increasing domestic production.
ReplyDeleteThanks again to Anonymous for noting that neither the WAPO nor the NYTimes gave any dignity to that stupid $50 billion line from Trump. He did say it as MSNBC covered his statement on air but most of the print press refused to run such an idiotic claim. Good for them and same on Reuters.
ReplyDelete