Trump47 Cabinet Picks & First 100 Days Agenda

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 28K
  • Politics 
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.
 


“…
Mr. Greer is a partner in international trade at the law firm King & Spalding. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Greer served as chief of staff to Robert E. Lighthizer, the trade representative at the time. He was involved in the Trump administration’s trade negotiations with China, as well as the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

Before that, Mr. Greer served in the Air Force, where he was a lawyer who prosecuted and defended U.S. airmen in criminal investigations. He was deployed to Iraq.

…
The U.S. trade representative, a cabinet-level official who carries the rank of ambassador, is charged with carrying out trade negotiations and resolving economic disputes with other countries, as well as working with lawmakers, farmers and business owners to shape trade policy. The representative leads a small agency of more than 200 people that has offices in Washington, Geneva and Brussels.

In addition to carrying out Mr. Trump’s tariff plans, the office is also likely to play an important role in negotiating trade terms with Canada and Mexico. In 2026, the countries are set to revisit the terms of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the trade pact Mr. Trump renegotiated in his first term to replace the NAFTA. …”
 
Paine said:

Just as predicted. RFK will be allowed to undermine our public health through vaccine skepticism. Big Ag will still control the food supply.
Click to expand...
RFK is really a stupider SOB than I thought if he was really under the impression that Donald Trump would let him go to war with Big Ag. It's not only that Trump's word means nothing and he uses people until he's tired of them and then tosses them to the curb (paging Robert Lighthizer!). But of all the presidents who might theoretically be interested in a crusade for healthy foods, Trump? Trump? The lardass who thrives on fast food and soda? You can take one look at Barack and Michelle and realize that these are people who might sign up for anti-obesity policy. And you can take one look at Trump and the people in his orbit and realize that these are not such people.
 
superrific said:
RFK is really a stupider SOB than I thought if he was really under the impression that Donald Trump would let him go to war with Big Ag. It's not only that Trump's word means nothing and he uses people until he's tired of them and then tosses them to the curb (paging Robert Lighthizer!). But of all the presidents who might theoretically be interested in a crusade for healthy foods, Trump? Trump? The lardass who thrives on fast food and soda? You can take one look at Barack and Michelle and realize that these are people who might sign up for anti-obesity policy. And you can take one look at Trump and the people in his orbit and realize that these are not such people.
Click to expand...
RFK Jr: “Last week I was forced to eat a Quarter Pounder with fries, and I didn’t even get anything as a reward?”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top