Trump47 Cabinet Picks & First 100 Days Agenda
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 2K
- Views: 31K
- Politics
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
Once again, we're in this weird situation where you admit to knowing nothing about the situation, but apparently enough to tell me I'm wrong even though I know about it and was the one who brought it up.
Let me make this simple for you. The. EU. Does. Not. Buy. LNG. It. Plays. No. Role.
EU’s opening bid to avoid Trump’s tariffs: We could buy more American gas
Brussels hopes to avoid trade war with the Republican president-elect.
www.politico.eu
"During the first Trump term, Juncker avoided more tariffs by assuring the U.S. president that Europe would facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas (and more American soybeans.) In fact, the European Commission has no real power in determining European companies' purchases of LNG and soybeans, but Trump was happy to accept the political theater of parading data that European purchases were going up."
"Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at commodities giant S&P Global, said any such deal on fossil fuels was likely to be more about politics than energy.
“The EU doesn't buy LNG — there's a global LNG market and LNG buyers have/ their own contracts,” he said. “It's certainly possible to do a memorandum of understanding to talk about increasing purchases but ultimately in the past that's been a way to put a political wrapper around something that was delivered by the market. And the EU is buying as much LNG currently as the market needs.”
Is Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at S&P Global, a "sketchy source"?
Don't you get tired of being humiliated when arguing with me? You think that I post shit I know nothing about, because that's what you do, but in fact I very rarely do anything like that.
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,286
Humiliated? You're the one who said "nothing" and when I provided a link showing a reported 181% increase, you changed your position from nothing to maybe an increase for couple years. That would mean his actions had an impact even if it wasn't directly with the EU.Once again, we're in this weird situation where you admit to knowing nothing about the situation, but apparently enough to tell me I'm wrong even though I know about it and was the one who brought it up.
Let me make this simple for you. The. EU. Does. Not. Buy. LNG. It. Plays. No. Role.
EU’s opening bid to avoid Trump’s tariffs: We could buy more American gas
Brussels hopes to avoid trade war with the Republican president-elect.
"During the first Trump term, Juncker avoided more tariffs by assuring the U.S. president that Europe would facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas (and more American soybeans.) In fact, the European Commission has no real power in determining European companies' purchases of LNG and soybeans, but Trump was happy to accept the political theater of parading data that European purchases were going up."
"Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at commodities giant S&P Global, said any such deal on fossil fuels was likely to be more about politics than energy.
“The EU doesn't buy LNG — there's a global LNG market and LNG buyers have/ their own contracts,” he said. “It's certainly possible to do a memorandum of understanding to talk about increasing purchases but ultimately in the past that's been a way to put a political wrapper around something that was delivered by the market. And the EU is buying as much LNG currently as the market needs.”
Is Laurent Ruseckas, executive director for gas markets at S&P Global, a "sketchy source"?
Don't you get tired of being humiliated when arguing with me? You think that I post shit I know nothing about, because that's what you do, but in fact I very rarely do anything like that.
As the Politico article says, a "memorandum of understanding" can be put out. Could that not be the cause of the reported 181% increase?
rodoheel
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,137
This is the part that is so crazy to me. Elon and Trump are basically saying they want to do for the US what Javier Milei did for Argentina. But the two situations aren't remotely similar! Milei took over in Argentina in a time of hyperinflation, with annual inflation of hundreds (if not thousands) percentage points. He's basically thrown the emergency break to cool inflation, throwing the economy into depression and most of the country into poverty. Opinions vary on whether his program is a good idea - way too early for him to be claiming victory, for sure - but the only reason something drastic was worth considering is because the economy was in shambles. But the US economy not only isn't in shambles, it's the best in the world! So we should be trying to make minor tweaks to address the problems we do have. Instead, Musk et al are ushing the idea that we're in some sort of crisis that requires drastic action. It's one thing to throw the emergency brake when you're careening off a cliff, and another thing entirely to throw it while you're cruising down the middle of the highway.
I still fear that this is Musk/Thiel trying to intentionally tank the US economy to weaken the dollar and push Bitcoin as the world's new reserve currency. Because it's hard to make it make sense otherwise.
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,018
I will be interested to see those numbers in January and then compare them to the numbers in July.
My guess is the numbers will be little changed or even a bit worse, and half the country will believe we have returned to having the greatest economy in the history of all mankind.
- Messages
- 1,070
reaching out to the moderates has been gang busters so far....
50% of the country didn't vote. and I'd say 90% of the people who did vote have no clue who Miel is or what he did. People need to fall on their own face to feel pain. It's hard to feel the pain while watching someone else falling, especially when you are not even looking.
TangledUpInBlue06
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 69
The idea that a bunch of millionaires and billionaires want to altruistically "fix" the government to work on behalf of the working man is infuriatingly naive. They didn't become ultra-wealthy by working in the best interest of anyone but themselves. There is no "enough."
If the richest man on the planet gave a shit about the working man, he wouldn't be the richest man on the planet - he'd put the VAST majority of his $330+ billion dollars to work for others. But he hasn't. And he won't. I cannot fathom how anyone could retain that amount of wealth.
And now we hand them the keys to the government too. Are people expecting them to change the essence of what made them who they are? Change what made them successful, what made them gobs and gobs of money, what allowed them power and influence?
The rich are using their money and influence to cosplay as statesmen because owning companies just doesn't give them the same high it used to. They need something stronger.
If the richest man on the planet gave a shit about the working man, he wouldn't be the richest man on the planet - he'd put the VAST majority of his $330+ billion dollars to work for others. But he hasn't. And he won't. I cannot fathom how anyone could retain that amount of wealth.
And now we hand them the keys to the government too. Are people expecting them to change the essence of what made them who they are? Change what made them successful, what made them gobs and gobs of money, what allowed them power and influence?
The rich are using their money and influence to cosplay as statesmen because owning companies just doesn't give them the same high it used to. They need something stronger.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
yes, humiliated. I was tossing you a bone with "maybe a slight increase for a couple of years" (that is, maybe 10% of the 181% rise was because of Trump) but never mind. The expert cited in the Politico article was very clear. Any MOU would be complete window dressing. Everyone LNG buyer in Europe is a market participant that buys according to the market. There is regulation of that sector, but the regulation is done on the national level, not the EU level.
Your golden boy Trump was played and that's the long and short of it. Completely played, because he doesn't know shit about the world and won't listen to people who do. Sound familiar?
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,286
"Tossing me a bone" based on your assumption that the deal resulted in "Nothing. Absolutely Nothing". Then you make more assumptions with your "couple of years" claim. Now, piling on more baseless assumptions attributing 10% of the 181%. You're making things up as you go.
You and I have no idea what, if anything, changed on the EU side that may have resulted in a legitimate increase in LNG purchases from the US even if the EU, as an entity, does no actual purchasing on its own.
Last edited:
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
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.
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,286
"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.
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.
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%
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
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."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:
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”.
- 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.
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.
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
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,286
It's been "explained" to me and I'm pointing out that the explanation doesn't align with what is reported.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
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.
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
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]
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.
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 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.
ZenMode
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,286
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:
superrific
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,586
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?