On 12/30/2011 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 14:06:45 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 12/29/2011 5:36 PM, wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:25 pm, wrote:

So you are saying that the buyers and sellers in the market between
the U.S. and China are not willing buyers and sellers?
If so who is making them buy or sell?

Dan

The buyers and sellers are willing. But all of them are affected by a
certain degree by the governments that run each country . So it's not a
free market because the governments make the decisions about economics
and not the market. When one government won't allow the goods of a
competitor into it's country but has free access for it's products in
that same country that isn't free trade. When any country is practicing
protectionism you don't have a free market. In world trade every
government is playing games to benefit itself at the expense of everyone
else. So there is no free trade.

Hawke

So you are saying that all goods are affected and there are no goods
which are bought and sold freely?

No, I'm not saying that. All over the world there are examples of free
markets operating but they are very small and don't really amount to
much. Lots of locally bought and sold things are free market. If you buy
some pot for a guy in your neighborhood that is pretty much a free
market item. Some people selling home grown food or produce or handmade
products to people nearby qualify as being a free market. But these
things are on the Mom and Pop level and amount to little as far as what
they are worth. Most goods sold worldwide are not like these small local
things.


I think you will find that some goods are traded in a free market and
some are not.

Yeah, I agree with that but when you look at world trade or even
national trade you find that so much of it is not free in any way and
that most things you buy are bought this way shows what I mean. You buy
a flat screen TV. You buy a car, clothes, anything from Walmart or the
grocery store. Almost all of it is coming from free markets that are in
reality not free at all because so much trade protection is going on.
Numerous books have been written about the "myth" of the free market,
which I happen to agree with.

Hawke

You are of course correct but do look into what are usually called
"gray markets" or "direct import", where a bloke flies from XXistan to
Singapore, buys up a bunch of TV parts and flies home to sell them. In
some developing it constitutes a large percentage of their trade.



People everywhere are always doing everything they can to avoid the
restraints put on them by governments. Like the examples you cited or to
things like cigarettes people sell under the table to avoid the taxes on
them or even on illegal drugs or even things like hiring labor to work
under the table or building structures not up to code. We all do it to
some degree. But the bulk of everything bought and sold throughout the
world is done under the umbrella of governments and they are all
manipulating everything they can in the attempt to get an advantage for
their country. I can't say I blame them. But with that happening
everywhere it means that free markets are a thing of the past. But that
may be a good thing.

Hawke

On Dec 31, 3:34*am, Hawke wrote:

No, when it comes to U.S. China trade none of it fits the definition of
free trade, regardless of what the commodity is. China is a currency
manipulator and uses trade protection for a lot of it's products. It
also sells products at less than it costs to produce them. We have trade
barriers on some of their products too. But we're on the losing end of
the deal with us having a huge trade deficit. There is so much
government intervention from both sides of the U.S. China trade it can't
fit the definition of free trade or a free market. But it is true that
both the buyers and sellers are willing participants.

Hawke

I still do not see how the market in wheat would be affected by the
examples you give.

China does not produce wheat to any big extent. So China would not be
using trade protection for it's product, because wheat is not one of
its products. China does not sell wheat at less than it costs to
produce it, because it does not produce it.

Dan

On 12/31/2011 7:13 AM, wrote:
....

I still do not see how the market in wheat would be affected by the
examples you give.

China does not produce wheat to any big extent. So China would not be
using trade protection for it's product, because wheat is not one of
its products. China does not sell wheat at less than it costs to
produce it, because it does not produce it.
....

Au contraire, good buddy...

Don't forget China is a big place...

2009 world wheat production
Area,ha tonnes
China 24,210,075 114,950,296
India 28,400,000 80,680,000
Russia 26,632,900 61,739,750
USA 20,181,081 60,314,290
France 5,146,600 38,324,700
Australia 13,507,000 21,656,000

But, like the rest of the Chinese economy, ag production is
state-manipulated w/ subsidies that are based on production levels so
statistics aren't necessarily all that reliable given the also
closed press system.

W/ all that, China imported more wheat in 2010 than ever before which is
puzzling everybody...

However, USDA staff have issued a series of warnings over the
reliability of official Chinese crop data, saying that a subsidy
system based on production encourages regional authorities to
exaggerateharvest figures.

Tom Puddy, marketing chief at CBH's GrainPool marketing arm, said:
"It is always a mystery about what [China's] actual stocks are."

So, you can't really say there's not manipulation in ag markets, either,
.... although they do buy on the open market and the size of their import
buying does affect the grain markets and the projection of yields during
growing season affects the futures markets as does that of the other
major producing areas.

--

On Dec 31, 8:47*am, dpb wrote:



So, you can't really say there's not manipulation in ag markets, either,
... although they do buy on the open market and the size of their import
buying does affect the grain markets and the projection of yields during
growing season affects the futures markets as does that of the other
major producing areas.

Ah real numbers , but perhaps not numbers that are real. I did not
realize that China produced as much wheat as your figures show. But
most of my argument still stands as China does not export wheat ( or
at least i think that is right ).

I figure that projections of yields and size of import buying are
things that happen in free markets. The stock market is something
that I consider as being a free market, but it does not mean that
people do not try to out smart others.

Dan

On 12/31/2011 3:46 PM, wrote:
On Dec 31, 8:47 am, wrote:



So, you can't really say there's not manipulation in ag markets, either,
... although they do buy on the open market and the size of their import
buying does affect the grain markets and the projection of yields during
growing season affects the futures markets as does that of the other
major producing areas.

Ah real numbers , but perhaps not numbers that are real. I did not
realize that China produced as much wheat as your figures show. But
most of my argument still stands as China does not export wheat ( or
at least i think that is right ).

The numbers are USDA-reported massaged from what sources there are
available. That there's some fudge in production numbers is likely, but
we're talking in percentages, not overall ranking kinds of numbers.
There's no doubt and has been for quite a long time that the total
production in China is half again that of the US in average US years;
about double in last two owing to serious drought conditions through
much of the US wheat belt. The _quality_ of Chinese wheat isn't that of
the US (#1 world-wide w/o question for hard winter wheat, the stuff of
bread for human use) and much is used internally for livestock feed as
opposed to human use.

But no, that China doesn't export wheat is not right, either. It's part
of the manipulation. They're a _net_ importer, but that doesn't mean
they don't export as well. They're fairly variable in quantities, but
over last decade have exported an average of roughly 1,500,000 metric
tonnes (that's 55,000 bu. in perhaps more recognizable units; a bushel
of wheat is 60 lb) annually. A chunk of that goes to help prop up the N
Koreans altho I don't have a breakdown of how much that is.

I figure that projections of yields and size of import buying are
things that happen in free markets. The stock market is something
that I consider as being a free market, but it does not mean that
people do not try to out smart others.

Sorta' yes, sorta' no...there are import duties against US ag products
of sizable magnitude in many places--the importance of the S Korean and
Colombia and some other S American trade agreements that the
administration _finally_ allowed to be approved have put in place a
framework over next 3 to 5 years most of those will decrease
significantly or even go away entirely. _THEN_ there will be more
nearly a free market in those particular commodities in those particular
markets, but there's been little progress w/ China as one example of
where they're not really that level even thought there are sizable
exports going on anyway.

Disclosure--SW KS wheat/milo/cattle farmer...

--

On 12/31/2011 4:21 PM, dpb wrote:
....
over last decade have exported an average of roughly 1,500,000 metric
tonnes (that's 55,000 bu. ...

Sorry, inadvertently dropped a 1K multiplier--that 55,000,000 bu average
exports/yr over last 10 years or so.

For comparison, they averaged importing more than that exports about
half the time---oh, heck, here...

in thousands of bushels
year imports exports deficit (E-I)
2001 40,040 55,440 15,400
2002 15,327 62,993 47,667
2003 137,463 103,547 (33,917)
2004 247,390 42,937 (204,453)
2005 41,397 51,223 9,827
2006 14,227 102,043 87,817
2007 1,797 103,950 102,153
2008 17,637 26,510 8,873
2009 51,113 32,707 (18,407)
2010 33,990 34,503 513
2011 55,000 36,667 (18,333)
Avg 59,580 59,320 (260)

So on average over last decade they about break even between imports and
exports but there are large fluctuations, particularly on the import
side where 2003-4 were heavy on the import side. W/O those, they're a
net exporter.

I got lazy and didn't go get production data again to put on top of it;
I'll leave that as "exercise for the student"...

--