Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 319K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
Yes, actually, about this one I do have an idea. This "making things up" is just me not wanting to make absolutist statements. You're right that I can't say for sure it did nothing. I'm extremely confident that whatever effect it did have amounted to a rounding error.

So again here's my position. Let's see if you can deal with something that isn't 100% black or white. To a first and second approximation, the MOU was meaningless and did nothing. Maybe it had some cosmetic effects. Maybe it contributed a rounding error worth of imports. That's it.

If you can find ANYTHING to rebut that point, please share. Otherwise, I'm going with the article I linked and I could link others but if you're not going to respond to that I'm not going to bother.
Click to expand...

"Maybe it had some cosmetic effects. Maybe it contributed a rounding error worth of imports. That's it.

If you can find ANYTHING to rebut that point, please share. "

From previous page....

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%​


EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%

Since their Joint Statement of 25 July 2018 in Washington D.C., when President Juncker and President Trump agreed to strengthen EU-U.S. strategic cooperation including in the area of energy, EU imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. have increased by 181%. The firstEU-U.S. Energy Council High-Level Forum will take place on 2 May 2019 in Brussels.

The release of these new LNG figures coincides with European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström's and Secretary-General Martin Selmayr's visit to Washington this week for meetings with their U.S. counterparts within the Executive Working Group. The implementation of the different elements of the Joint Statement of Presidents Juncker and Trump was one of the topics addressed. The recent developments on LNG trade attest to the European Union's continued commitment to deliver on all aspects of the 25 July agreement.

With a share of 12,6% of EU-LNG imports in 2019 so far, the U.S. is Europe's third biggest supplier of LNG[1]. The European Union is ready to facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S., if the market conditions are right and prices competitive. This will allow U.S. exporters to further diversify their European markets whilst contributing to the EU's objectives of security of supply and diversification. Currently, U.S. legislation still requires prior regulatory approval for liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. These restrictions need to be addressed and U.S. rules made easier for U.S. liquefied natural gas to be exported in larger quantities to the EU.

Current figures show that:

  • Compared to the period before the 25 July 2018 Joint Statement, cumulative EU imports of U.S. LNG are up by 181% at 7.9 billion cubic meters until early March 2019;
  • In terms of the EU's total imports of LNG, the U.S. share was 12%, over the last six months, compared to 2.3% before the Joint Statement and since the first U.S. LNG cargo to Europe in April 2016.
  • In the month of January 2019, EU imports of U.S. LNG from the U.S. were 1.3 billion cubic meters, up from 102 million cubic meterscompared to the same month in 2018. In February 2019 total U.S. LNG imports amounted to 0.6 billion cubic meters.
To further explore and discuss the strengthening of the transatlantic strategic cooperation with respect to energy, as agreed in the July 2018 Joint Statement, the EU and the United States are organising the first EU-U.S. Energy Council High-Level Forum in Brussels. The event will take place on 2 May under the theme: “Towards large-scale U.S. LNG exports to the EU's gas market: competitive pricing, infrastructure investments and technological innovation”.

The EU has co-financed or committed to co-finance LNG infrastructure projects worth over €656 million (see list of projects in Annex 2). In addition to the existing 150 billion cubic meters of spare capacity in the EU, the EU is supporting eight LNG projects, which will increase capacity by another 22 billion cubic meters by 2023.

ec.europa.eu

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%
ec.europa.eu ec.europa.eu
 
ZenMode said:
"Maybe it had some cosmetic effects. Maybe it contributed a rounding error worth of imports. That's it.

If you can find ANYTHING to rebut that point, please share. "

From previous page....

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%​


EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%

Since their Joint Statement of 25 July 2018 in Washington D.C., when President Juncker and President Trump agreed to strengthen EU-U.S. strategic cooperation including in the area of energy, EU imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S. have increased by 181%. The firstEU-U.S. Energy Council High-Level Forum will take place on 2 May 2019 in Brussels.

The release of these new LNG figures coincides with European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström's and Secretary-General Martin Selmayr's visit to Washington this week for meetings with their U.S. counterparts within the Executive Working Group. The implementation of the different elements of the Joint Statement of Presidents Juncker and Trump was one of the topics addressed. The recent developments on LNG trade attest to the European Union's continued commitment to deliver on all aspects of the 25 July agreement.

With a share of 12,6% of EU-LNG imports in 2019 so far, the U.S. is Europe's third biggest supplier of LNG[1]. The European Union is ready to facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S., if the market conditions are right and prices competitive. This will allow U.S. exporters to further diversify their European markets whilst contributing to the EU's objectives of security of supply and diversification. Currently, U.S. legislation still requires prior regulatory approval for liquefied natural gas exports to Europe. These restrictions need to be addressed and U.S. rules made easier for U.S. liquefied natural gas to be exported in larger quantities to the EU.

Current figures show that:

  • Compared to the period before the 25 July 2018 Joint Statement, cumulative EU imports of U.S. LNG are up by 181% at 7.9 billion cubic meters until early March 2019;
  • In terms of the EU's total imports of LNG, the U.S. share was 12%, over the last six months, compared to 2.3% before the Joint Statement and since the first U.S. LNG cargo to Europe in April 2016.
  • In the month of January 2019, EU imports of U.S. LNG from the U.S. were 1.3 billion cubic meters, up from 102 million cubic meterscompared to the same month in 2018. In February 2019 total U.S. LNG imports amounted to 0.6 billion cubic meters.
To further explore and discuss the strengthening of the transatlantic strategic cooperation with respect to energy, as agreed in the July 2018 Joint Statement, the EU and the United States are organising the first EU-U.S. Energy Council High-Level Forum in Brussels. The event will take place on 2 May under the theme: “Towards large-scale U.S. LNG exports to the EU's gas market: competitive pricing, infrastructure investments and technological innovation”.

The EU has co-financed or committed to co-finance LNG infrastructure projects worth over €656 million (see list of projects in Annex 2). In addition to the existing 150 billion cubic meters of spare capacity in the EU, the EU is supporting eight LNG projects, which will increase capacity by another 22 billion cubic meters by 2023.

ec.europa.eu

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%

EU-U.S. Joint Statement: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. continue to rise, up by 181%
ec.europa.eu ec.europa.eu
Click to expand...
You think that is a rebuttal but it is not. I'm not doing this any more. It was already explained to you, not just by me but by the expert quoted in the politico article. Your position is nothing more than post hoc ergo prompter hoc which is a fallacy that people are taught in high school to avoid.
 
superrific said:
You think that is a rebuttal but it is not. I'm not doing this any more. It was already explained to you, not just by me but by the expert quoted in the politico article. Your position is nothing more than post hoc ergo prompter hoc which is a fallacy that people are taught in high school to avoid.
Click to expand...
It's been "explained" to me and I'm pointing out that the explanation doesn't align with what is reported.
 
ZenMode said:
It's been "explained" to me and I'm pointing out that the explanation doesn't align with what is reported.
Click to expand...
It does align perfectly. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy runs strong in you. "After this, because of this" is not a valid principle of logic. Do what you gotta do to save face, I suppose. Discussing with you is like discussing with randman. It's just a fire hose of bullshit everywhere.
 
Like I said, Americans are already suffering financially due to Trump’s stupid threats. So up until now, we have been a net loser for this.
I don’t want to hear what MAGAs think will happen in the future.
Just let me know when the positive impact happens. In the meantime, I’ll continue to update the MAGAs on the economic harm he is doing.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is interested in the difference between a sham agreement and a real agreement, you can compare and contrast the 2018 bullshit agreement with a similar one that Bidens' team negotiated.

Joint U.S.-EU Statement following President Juncker's visit to the White House (Biden)
Joint U.S.-EU Statement following President Juncker's visit to the White House (Trump)

I mean, look at how the Trump one ends ("We also want to resolve the steel and aluminum tariff issues and retaliatory tariffs." It's like they lost interest halfway through).

Anyway, if you look at the Biden agreement, you will see some actual measures. They are modest.

"The United States and the European Commission will immediately establish a joint Task Force on Energy Security to set out the parameters of this cooperation and execute its implementation. The Task Force will be chaired by a representative from the White House and a representative of the President of the European Commission.

This Task Force will focus on the following urgent issues: " '[such as the examples below, cut-and-pasted from a bullet point list in the document]

  • The European Commission will work with EU Member States and market operators to pool demand through a newly established EU Energy platform for additional volumes between April and October 2022. The European Commission will also support long-term contracting mechanisms and partner with the U.S. to encourage relevant contracting to support final investment decisions on both LNG export and import infrastructure.
  • The European Commission will work with EU Member States toward ensuring stable demand for additional U.S. LNG until at least 2030 of approximately 50 bcm/annum, on the understanding that the price formula of LNG supplies to the EU should reflect long-term market fundamentals, and stability of the cooperation of the demand and supply side, and that this growth be consistent with our shared net zero goals. In particular, price formula should include consideration of Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price and other stabilising factors.
This is the sort of thing the EU can accomplish, and little else. The EU Energy platform was a European initiative in response to the Ukraine invasion. Otherwise, everything in the agreement consists of soft commitments from the EU about encouraging member states, trying to ensure stable demand, etc.

This is how international diplomacy works. It is a slow process. It is cumbersome. It is not something that can be positively "disrupted" in any Silicon Valley style, because the leaders of other countries are not MAGAs and they aren't idiots. The EU folks laugh at Trump's bluster (literally, as the German delegation did when Trump was farcically addressing the UN) and then they go about their business. They don't give a shit about Trump's threats and bombast. It means nothing to them, because they are professionals at what they do.
 
superrific said:
It does align perfectly. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy runs strong in you. "After this, because of this" is not a valid principle of logic. Do what you gotta do to save face, I suppose. Discussing with you is like discussing with randman. It's just a fire hose of bullshit everywhere.
Click to expand...
Save face for who? I don't give a shit about anyone here or what anyone here thinks about me. I'm a nameless, faceless screen name on a chat forum.

I wasn't there for the negotiations or writing of the deal. I have no visibility to the data related to LNG exports to the EU. All I have is looking at the evidence in front of me, deciding what it makes sense to believe and to what degree I believe it.

That being the case I have two choices: take the word of someone who is clearly biased against Trump and most anything he wants to do or take the word of a report from the two parties involved which seems to directly contradict the former.

What would you do?
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Save face for who? I don't give a shit about anyone here or what anyone here thinks about me. I'm a nameless, faceless screen name on a chat forum.

I wasn't there for the negotiations or writing of the deal. I have no visibility to the data related to LNG exports to the EU. All I have is looking at the evidence in front of me, deciding what it makes sense to believe and to what degree I believe it.

That being the case I have two choices: take the word of someone who is clearly biased against Trump and most anything he wants to do or take the word of a report from the two parties involved which seems to directly contradict the former.

What would you do?
Click to expand...
Read the opinion of someone who knows these things. One was provided to you. That person does not hate Trump to my knowledge. And nothing in that report contradicts anything, as much as you would like to think that it does.

Do we have to go through Lisa Simpson's rock that keeps away tigers yet again, or have you finally grasped the concept?
 
superrific said:
Read the opinion of someone who knows these things. One was provided to you. That person does not hate Trump to my knowledge. And nothing in that report contradicts anything, as much as you would like to think that it does.

Do we have to go through Lisa Simpson's rock that keeps away tigers yet again, or have you finally grasped the concept?
Click to expand...
Even if they don't hate Trump, it's still an opinion, right? It's an opinion vs, again, the two parties involved reporting a significant and continued increase.

Could the two parties involved be lying? Maybe, but unlikely. Is it possible that the noticeable and continuing increases are completely coincidental? Maybe.

The better question might be, given the available information, why you are so set in your belief?
 
ZenMode said:
The better question might be, given the available information, why you are so set in your belief?
Click to expand...
Because I understand what the EU can and can't do. I understand to some degree (not completely, by any stretch) the relationship between the EU and EU member states. I understand where LNG regulations are addressed (not at the EU level; they are national policies), and I also have an idea of how energy procurement works (as the analyst said, it's like in the U.S., based on a market that has a spot price and a future/forward price elements).

You accept that the EU is powerless to address LNG, but think that an MOU and encouragement from the Commission would change behavior at the national level. That's just not how politics works in Europe. Influence runs the other way; countries don't like taking orders from the Commission any more than states like to take order from the Fed. This is not hard to verify if you choose.

Think about it this way. Suppose the Fed were to adopt some policy encouraging states to restructure their pension systems to make them less reliant on credit rating agencies (there were some efforts to decouple fiduciary responsibilities from AAA ratings from rating agencies after the financial crisis). How many states would comply, do you think? I think none would. Imagine the North Carolina legislature getting into session and being told, "sure, you've run your pension system for 100 years by holding AAA securities, but now we want you to take a more flexible standard giving more power to individual fiduciaries." I am quite certain that the legislature would tell the messenger to pound sand. What do you think? How many states would modify their existing laws and regulatory structure because the Fed put out a memorandum?
 
superrific said:
Because I understand what the EU can and can't do. I understand to some degree (not completely, by any stretch) the relationship between the EU and EU member states. I understand where LNG regulations are addressed (not at the EU level; they are national policies), and I also have an idea of how energy procurement works (as the analyst said, it's like in the U.S., based on a market that has a spot price and a future/forward price elements).

You accept that the EU is powerless to address LNG, but think that an MOU and encouragement from the Commission would change behavior at the national level. That's just not how politics works in Europe. Influence runs the other way; countries don't like taking orders from the Commission any more than states like to take order from the Fed. This is not hard to verify if you choose.

Think about it this way. Suppose the Fed were to adopt some policy encouraging states to restructure their pension systems to make them less reliant on credit rating agencies (there were some efforts to decouple fiduciary responsibilities from AAA ratings from rating agencies after the financial crisis). How many states would comply, do you think? I think none would. Imagine the North Carolina legislature getting into session and being told, "sure, you've run your pension system for 100 years by holding AAA securities, but now we want you to take a more flexible standard giving more power to individual fiduciaries." I am quite certain that the legislature would tell the messenger to pound sand. What do you think? How many states would modify their existing laws and regulatory structure because the Fed put out a memorandum?
Click to expand...
I acknowledge that the EU, as an entity, has never bought LNG. It's never purchased oil, propane or probably any natural resource.

I also accept that member states are under no obligation to change their behavior based on a suggestion or encouragement, especially if the request were something clearly unwise like putting less importance on credit rating.

However, there may not be anything clearly unwise about buying from the US as opposed to Russia, right? Unless there was a significant cost difference, I don't see anything inherently unwise in it. It's just a matter of preference. I was a buyer for a IT solutions company for a couple of years and the costs from our suppliers were generally pretty similar, sometimes identical, so the decision often came down to other factors. The same could be true for the member states. "No real cost difference, so why not do something to keep things friendly between us and the US?"
 
ZenMode said:
I acknowledge that the EU, as an entity, has never bought LNG. It's never purchased oil, propane or probably any natural resource.

I also accept that member states are under no obligation to change their behavior based on a suggestion or encouragement, especially if the request were something clearly unwise like putting less importance on credit rating.

However, there may not be anything clearly unwise about buying from the US as opposed to Russia, right? Unless there was a significant cost difference, I don't see anything inherently unwise in it. It's just a matter of preference. I was a buyer for a IT solutions company for a couple of years and the costs from our suppliers were generally pretty similar, sometimes identical, so the decision often came down to other factors. The same could be true for the member states. "No real cost difference, so why not do something to keep things friendly between us and the US?"
Click to expand...
No, putting less importance on credit rating was a positive step, given that the rating agencies were publishing bullshit. Whatever, this thread isn't about that.

As for your last paragraph, that's basically what I've been saying, so good that you come around. There is indeed nothing inherently unwise about purchasing from the US rather than Russia -- which is why LNG purchases were going up in the first place. But that wasn't a "yeah USA" thing; it was ensuring a diverse supply chain which you would know about as a buyer. So simply looking at the history and saying "line goes up" is not a sound analysis.

Note that the member states don't purchase gas either. just as in the US, it's the utilities who do the purchasing, and the utilities are investor-owned, and they seek to maximize profits. But my understanding is that, at the national level, countries have a bit of soft power over the utilities, and if, say, the Greek government suggested that Greek utilities buy more from the US, sure, that might happen. This was the rounding error effect that you were assailing me for suggesting. I mean, I can't rule it out.

But there's also a collective action problem that you're not seeing. Suppose everyone in Europe did want to buy more LNG from the US. Fine, but who is going to do it? Every country wants every other country to do that, while they do as little as possible (note below). This is a classic free rider problem, and it's the reason why the US has a strong federal government and why Europe organized into the EU and vested the EU with some powers. But in areas where the EU has no jurisdiction, the free rider problem remains.

So if your mental image is of Macron calling French utilities and saying, "we really need to buy LNG from the US," that didn't happen and never would. Could there be a very small effect on the margin? Sure, I suppose. I can't rule it out. But that's what we are talking about: rounding error level effects.

It's good to see you come around. It shouldn't take as many posts as it does, and now that we've done this dance a few times, one would hope that you would more eagerly drop your contrarianism and converse with an eye to learning. But whatever.
 
superrific said:
No, putting less importance on credit rating was a positive step, given that the rating agencies were publishing bullshit. Whatever, this thread isn't about that.

As for your last paragraph, that's basically what I've been saying, so good that you come around. There is indeed nothing inherently unwise about purchasing from the US rather than Russia -- which is why LNG purchases were going up in the first place. But that wasn't a "yeah USA" thing; it was ensuring a diverse supply chain which you would know about as a buyer. So simply looking at the history and saying "line goes up" is not a sound analysis.

Note that the member states don't purchase gas either. just as in the US, it's the utilities who do the purchasing, and the utilities are investor-owned, and they seek to maximize profits. But my understanding is that, at the national level, countries have a bit of soft power over the utilities, and if, say, the Greek government suggested that Greek utilities buy more from the US, sure, that might happen. This was the rounding error effect that you were assailing me for suggesting. I mean, I can't rule it out.

But there's also a collective action problem that you're not seeing. Suppose everyone in Europe did want to buy more LNG from the US. Fine, but who is going to do it? Every country wants every other country to do that, while they do as little as possible (note below). This is a classic free rider problem, and it's the reason why the US has a strong federal government and why Europe organized into the EU and vested the EU with some powers. But in areas where the EU has no jurisdiction, the free rider problem remains.

So if your mental image is of Macron calling French utilities and saying, "we really need to buy LNG from the US," that didn't happen and never would. Could there be a very small effect on the margin? Sure, I suppose. I can't rule it out. But that's what we are talking about: rounding error level effects.

It's good to see you come around. It shouldn't take as many posts as it does, and now that we've done this dance a few times, one would hope that you would more eagerly drop your contrarianism and converse with an eye to learning. But whatever.
Click to expand...
My opinion hasn't changed from the beginning, but I also have no desire to continue beating this dead horse over something I honestly don't care about.
 
ZenMode said:
My opinion hasn't changed from the beginning, but I also have no desire to continue beating this dead horse over something I honestly don't care about.
Click to expand...
Well, the way you've expressed it has, as has your tone, but sure -- I don't care to talk about this any more either. Maybe eventually you will realize that I rarely talk about of my ass -- and basically never about law, economics or finance. So if I say something, you can count on that being a plausible and respectable take. It won't necessarily be right, but I simply do not spout nonsense. It's not in my DNA.
 
So Chuck Grassley gave an interview to Politico, in which he said that Trump's tariffs are a "negotiating tool" but he was concerned about a trade war.

What is wrong with these people? The first rule of negotiating tools is that you don't talk about your negotiating tools. I mean, what kind of an idiot broadcasts their negotiating tactics and then expects them to be useful?

Party 1: We propose to pay $30M
Party 2: We want $50M
Party 1: Not a chance. We'll go up to $32M
Party 2 [taking out a gun and pointing it at 1's head]: if you don't agree to 50, I will shoot you through the head.
Party 1: Whoa, isn't that a bit extreme?
Party 2: Well, it's actually not loaded. It's a negotiating tactic. So, $50M it is?
Party 1: Best and final offer: $30M.

This is basically what Grassley says is going to happen. What the fuck is wrong with them?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top