Impromptu Presser With Wilbur Ross Aboard Air Force One…

No reports from the press pool on this, and there is some important granular information, so here’s the transcript:

[Transcript] Aboard Air Force One – En Route Dubuque, Iowa – 11:27 A.M. EDT

GIDLEY: I know we’re about to land. We wanted to bring Secretary Ross back to have conversation about just what happened yesterday with the agreement with the European Union and steps moving forward, and what the President was able to do in that agreement.

So with that, I’ll turn it over to Secretary Ross, and he’ll take questions after. And if we could, let’s keep it to topic.

SECRETARY ROSS: Okay, thank you very much. I think you’ve heard the general outline of what was done yesterday, namely a commitment to move toward three zeros: zero tariffs, zero non-tariff trade barriers, and zero subsidies.

Basically, the idea that — is to level the playing field. Europe right now has much higher tariffs and much higher trade barriers than we do. Their trade barriers are both in the form of regulations that are not science-based, and standards that also are not science-based. So they have the practical net effect of keeping products out, even if they had no tariff at all.

The tariff barriers are considerable. On autos, they have 10 percent. We have two and a quarter percent. Obviously, that’s a very disjointed situation.

So going forward, the direction is pushing towards zero. That’s really where the President’s trade policies have always been heading. But to get there, we had to take a route of trying to make it more painful for the other parties to continue bad practices than to drop them. And that’s why he put up tariffs to put pressure on. And it seems to be starting to work.

I think if we hadn’t done the steel and aluminum tariffs, and if we hadn’t had the threat of automotive tariffs, we never would have gotten to the point where we are now. Ever since the President came into office, he’s told the EU he was willing to negotiate. It’s only now that they’ve been willing to come around.

So I think the first thing is, this is a real vindication that the President’s trade policy is starting to work. The more substantive thing is it’s the right direction. Because if we can roll out that whole formula to the rest of the world, our trade deficit will go down. We believe that American companies, and especially American farmers, can compete anywhere if they have a level playing field.

So I think it’s a very good move not just for the U.S. and not just for the EU, but for the whole global trading system.

♦ Q So what does this mean for the prospect of auto tariffs?

SECRETARY ROSS: Well, in terms of auto tariffs, we’ve been directed by the President to continue the investigation, get our material together, but not actually implement anything pending the outcome of the negotiations.

So the work is continuing. Probably sometime in the month of August we’ll be willing to render a report. It may not be necessary, or it may be necessary. We will see. But the work is continuing. Similarly, the steel and aluminum tariffs stay in place as we sit here.

♦ Q Secretary Ross, how long will the negotiation process, do you believe, take with the European Union?

SECRETARY ROSS: Well, that’s very hard to judge. Normally, trade discussions take multiple years. But that’s because they generally have one meeting and then pause for a month, have another meeting. So we’re going to try to do it much faster, just as NAFTA has been a much faster process than a normal trade discussion.

The other thing that should accelerate it: We’ve already set the guiding principles — the three zeros, getting toward the three zeros. Normally, it would take a long time to agree just what are the objectives of the negotiations.

Here, we have the big objectives set, so it’s more a question, how do you implement them? How do you achieve the goals to which both parties agree?

♦ Q Mr. Secretary, what do you say to the President’s supporters? Like, we’re going right now to the state of Illinois where the President is going to be celebrating this steel company’s expansion, but this is also a state –- we’re not far away from there — the biggest manufacturer of nails has been laying off people, they say, because of the President’s policies. What do you say to those people? Should they just suffer in the meantime?

SECRETARY ROSS: Well, if you look at the actual statistics, a lot more jobs are being created than destroyed. Look at the weekly unemployment figures, look at the weekly hirings, look at the weekly job openings.

There are some cases where people have been laid off. It’s not always because of tariffs. A lot of companies have been using the excuse, “Oh, the reason my earnings weren’t good is that there were the tariffs.” In many cases, that’s not the main reason. The main reason is there was something else going on in their overall picture.

But the actual numbers, week after week, do not show that employment is being hurt. To the contrary, employment is booming. The whole reason that we’ve initiated these new moves for workforce development, for apprenticeships, for learn-to-earn, is we now have fewer unemployment — no more unemployed people than the amount of job openings. That’s the first time in American history that we’ve had that.

So anybody who thinks that the steel and aluminum tariffs have been — this must be some unemployed worker shaking the plane — (laughs) — anyhow, anybody who thinks that it has hurt employment simply doesn’t read the weekly statistics. And they’re also not reading the — we’ll have very good numbers for the June period. Very good economic numbers.

GIDLEY: Let’s do a couple more.

♦ Q Why abandon T-TIP? If the idea is to have a trade deal with Europe, why walk away from T-TIP, which was being negotiated?

SECRETARY ROSS: Sorry, couldn’t hear.

GIDLEY: Why walk away from T-TIP, he said.

SECRETARY ROSS: Well, T-TIP, was going no place. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans had appetite for it. Remember — I’m sorry, about TPP you’re saying?

Q (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY ROSS: Oh — oh, T-TIP.

Q Yeah.

SECRETARY ROSS: Okay. Well, we haven’t walked away from T-TIP. We deliberately did not cancel the T-TIP negotiations when President Trump was elected. We did cancel TPP, and that was meant to be a deliberate signal to the European Union that we wanted to negotiate with them.

♦ Q Mr. Secretary, specifically just to clarify on the auto tariffs, when you say that they’re going to be held off on, are you just talking about the EU, or all of the auto tariffs will be in a holding pattern until the negotiations take place?

SECRETARY ROSS: Well, what we’ve agreed is not — basically not to impose automotive tariffs while the negotiations are underway. We have continued the steel and aluminum tariffs, and so there’s really no change in that situation. We weren’t ready to come to a conclusion on automotive anyway. It would be another month or so.

♦ Q Is it just the EU or other countries as well? Is the auto delay only for the EU, or also other countries?

SECRETARY ROSS: The whole work on the auto tariffs will continue. Depending on where we are with the EU, it might have an impact in what are the eventual conclusion. But we don’t have conclusions yet. We’re still in the process of the investigation.

GIDLEY: Thanks, everybody. I’ll come back in a second. I’m going to walk him out. We’re about to land. We might get it on the next leg.

END  – 11:36 A.M. EDT

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canada, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2018, energy, European Union, Legislation, media bias, NAFTA, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to Impromptu Presser With Wilbur Ross Aboard Air Force One…

  1. cthulhu says:

    One of the most significant changes in VSGPOTUSDJT’s negotiations is that he refuses to be “forever bound to stupid” on anything. Prior trade negotiations were all about fooling the US negotiator for 20 seconds and getting a signed deal that disfavored the US, then saying, “it’s the law, it’s the law, neener, neener, neener.” If something made sense yesterday, makes sense today, and will make sense tomorrow — by all means, let’s keep it. But if something didn’t make sense then, doesn’t make sense now, and won’t make sense in the future — it’s likely written on toilet paper and the CoC’s lobbying bribes to the legislature don’t mean squat.

    Liked by 17 people

  2. WSB says:

    So many facets of these negotiations. Facinating to read about the details and the cheese dangIng during the discussions.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Finally, some reporting on what is going on with the new trade deal. Instead we are barraged with the fact that a reporter (who should never make themselves part of the story!) is banned from the next press event because she asked inappropriate questions (gossip BS) during an inappropriate time. Apparently, the press has now become the story instead of reporting the facts of what is going on with the administration. I have had enough of CNN and any other mainstream outlet who thinks that they should be making the news instead of reporting it. They have sullied their own reputations. It cannot be blamed on anyone else.

    Liked by 10 people

    • The Boss says:

      The way I look at it is this.
      If you don’t know how to dignify yourself as a journalist (by not acting like an animal or race-baiter), then evidently you can’t distinguish right from wrong. Since you can’t distinguish right from wrong, you cannot be trusted to communicate fairly. Hence, you are a fake journalist.

      Liked by 9 people

  4. Donna in Oregon says:

    No contracts were signed, but the agreement of 0-0-0 makes sense.

    Where I get confused is the soybeans that China cancelled. China buys $12 billion per year….the exact amount of the Farm Aid that was just approved. Brazil is supposed to be supplying China instead of the USA, and I guess Argentina too….which were the EU soybean providers. I also read that the soybeans are different from the ones we supply.

    Confused…..

    The soybean contracts cancelled by China, I read were GMO soybeans. I thought that EU countries banned GMO products. Which is very confusing considering Germany’s Bayer bought Monsanto from the USA….which is where the GMO seeds and Roundup come from.

    Confused….

    And what are the billions that President Trump says we (the USA) are making that the MSM doesn’t talk about? Is that in tariffs?

    IDK. Confusing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • nimrodman says:

      I interpret Wilbur to be alluding to the GMO issue when he says:
      “regulations that are not science-based, and standards that also are not science-based”
      … as “non-tariff” barriers.

      EU’s got regulations and standards unfavorable to GMO products.

      They’re “not science-based” in that there are no valid scientific studies that show GMO products to be harmful.

      So – not science.
      Yet – a de-facto trade barrier

      … to US agricultural products.

      Like

  5. Donna in Oregon says:

    Oh, sorry, got it: China has to pay more. Ah, that’s too bad….. Oh noes, so does the EU? So this is in the best interests of the USA. Now I get it. That’s why the farmers aren’t freaking out, just the fake politicians and the fake news.

    Brazil Soy Premium Doubles

    The U.S.-China trade dispute has boosted soybean prices in Brazil, the top shipper, forcing EU processors to look elsewhere for supplies. That’s likely to mean that the U.S. will overtake Brazil as the biggest seller to the 28-nation bloc next season, according to Rabobank International Ltd. China could replace around 4 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans with Brazilian supplies in the fourth quarter if tariffs are implemented, according to Rabobank. Bloomberg’s Julia Leite talks with Bloomberg’s Alix Steel about Brazil’s role in the trade fight over soybeans. (Source: Bloomberg)

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2018-06-29/brazil-s-soy-premium-doubles-as-u-s-china-bicker-over-trade-video

    Liked by 2 people

    • SteveT says:

      Brazil supplies around 55% of China’s soy beans, US around 33%. To supply the whole shortfall from the USA, Brazil would need an increase in production of 60%. Unlikely, certainly short term.
      China has imposed a tariff, they could still pay it and import US beans – if there are any left.
      The EU don’t like GMO crops, but are willing to take them “for what will be animal feed”, never mind those animals will be fed to humans eventually. “You don’t like my principles, I’ve got others” An obvious example of a non-tariff barrier.
      The EU (Germany) will do almost anything to keep selling their cars. The EU will do what they’re told by Germany.
      The soybean redistribution will take place and will not have any real effect on US producers. The Chinese tariffs will be meaningless, but will likely increase the US deficit with China (lost imports from US) and decrease the deficit with the EU. China will have made their position with respect to the US more difficult. What will be next, further US action (tariffs) to reduce imports from China? Each time, China will lose.

      SteveT

      Liked by 4 people

      • daughnworks247 says:

        This is so easy an 8th grader could make this deal….now that POTUS has has ripped everyone’s masks off.
        It’s undeniable, there are only so many soybeans in the world. China has a hissy fit and says, “We’re not buying from the USA.”. Instead of begging China to buy American soybeans, which is what EVERY past American Pres would have done, Trump says ‘Fine, no soybeans for you.” and I guarantee, not one single bean from Iowa will land in China.
        China didn’t think this through.
        China is boxed in and has to save face.
        China HAS to buy from Brazil/Argentina.
        If I’m a Brazilian soybean farmer, I’m sitting pretty. My price just doubled and I am grinning from ear to ear at the chance to screw over the Chinese.
        Europe, now, because of the errant Chinese, has no soybeans, and they NEED soybeans.
        President Junker, literally, has a disaster looming = no soybeans.
        “Oh my”, says Trump, “I have these soybeans, over here, in Iowa. President Junker, would you like to buy my Iowa soybeans?”
        President Trump now gets a TWO-FER.
        Trump wades back into the negotiations with Junker to ‘solve Junker’s problem’ which was created by ‘those dastardly Chinese’.
        President Trump knows this is going to happen (and here’s the brilliant part) creates leverage and ponied up 12 billion (which everyone in the media is screaming about because they don’t understand how important the leverage was), giving the ‘appearance’ he was willing to let the soybeans rot…. but not actually SPENDING the money.
        Junker knows this. Trump has raised the ante. Trump says, “Mr. Junker, my Iowa soybeans are very pretty soybeans. They are going to cost you a little more than those ugly Brazilian soybeans.” and yes, I know that soybean price is regulated commodity, of course. Yet, I HIGHLY suspect, there is a bonus in there somewhere.
        And THIS is how President Trump screws the Chinese today.
        Do NOT threaten President Trump’s friends, his farmers.
        Did you SEE President Trump’s eye’s narrow, yesterday in his Illinois speech, when he spoke of the audacity of China trying to go after American farmers to coerce people to vote for Dems? I know what it means when a man gets that look on his face.
        It’s war.
        There will be many more of these skirmishes until the Chinese readjust their thinking and eventually come to the table. The Chinese are stubborn.
        Trump’s America will win because we will join the war for a just cause.

        Liked by 6 people

        • sat0422 says:

          Yep, I knew that Obama was up to his eyeballs in super glue but I gather from your post daughnworks247 that Obama didn’t even have an 8th grade education. He sure didn’t study any stinking Economics and I bet he was never on a real debate team. Obama had one negotiating strategy: “My way or the highway.” “I’m send those Iranians money and lots of it, so shut up.” I’m sure fellow treepers can add to my list of Obama’s so called deals.

          Liked by 1 person

    • tonyE says:

      My understanding is that American Soybeans are the standard of the world.

      BTW, the Standard of the Standard are Honda Soybeans from Ohio. Don’t laugh, it’s for real:

      My tofu is powered by Honda! ;-D

      Or, if you’re in SoCal, go to Meiji Tofu in Gardena.

      Liked by 1 person

      • nimrodman says:

        My tofu is powered by Honda!

        So might your Honda, if it takes advantage of methane production following the meal.
        (hey, I’m just sayin’)

        Like

  6. MIKE says:

    Could someone explain what T-Tip is? I am clueless

    Liked by 2 people

    • sundance says:

      T-Tip is Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

      ie. the trade deal with the EU bloc similar in construct to the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership).

      Liked by 10 people

      • MIKE says:

        Thank you. Re-reading the transcript was easier to understand, it sounds like the questioner assumed it was dumped with the TPP. Secretary Ross still deems it as potentially useful in upcoming negotiations.
        Wilbur & co. are sharp and shrewd. And resourceful. What you have been putting forth is so true, and becoming clear as day. These guys are killers, and I’m glad they’re on our side.

        Liked by 2 people

  7. Donna in Oregon says:

    Argentina soybeans are a different story. I don’t understand this soybean stuff, are these parties making up stories? From Reuters in April 2018:

    APRIL 10, 2018 / 2:21 PM / 4 MONTHS AGO
    Argentina buys most U.S. soy in 20 years after drought cuts crop
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-soybeans-argentina/argentina-buys-most-u-s-soy-in-20-years-after-drought-cuts-crop-idUSKBN1HH3CP

    Liked by 2 people

    • yucki says:

      I’m also confused.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Beenthere says:

      What I understand from the article, it looks like China’s huge tariff on USA soybeans went belly-up.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Donna in Oregon says:

      How much money is this for the USA soybean farmer?

      Report says this about Argentina and the USA:

      Jun 1, 2018 – Argentina has purchased 600,000 tons of U.S. soybeans, both in new crop and the current marketing year. This is the largest purchase of U.S….

      https://www.agweb.com/article/argentina-makes-largest-us-soybean-purchase-since-1997/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Good_heavens_are_you_still_trying_to_win says:

      In my opinion, this article is a little misleading and a little clever in how they have indicated certain aspects of soybean exports. Go figure, right. Note the use of “crushers” in the description of how soybeans are being discussed. OK, now think about this for a second. Your experience of a soybean comes in a few ways. The most recognizable is if you order edamame, say, from a sushi place. Soybeans. Raw (ok, cooked) soybeans. The US is the largest producer and exporter of RAW soybeans in the world. GMO or otherwise. When a soybean goes to a “crusher” it is being converted into something else: soybean meal (feedstock for livestock, typically) and the by-product of crushing, soybean oil.

      This is where it gets complicated, so suffice to say, Argentina is importing US raw soybeans not for domestic demand but to fulfill long-term and spot contracts for sale BACK to us as soybean oil. And guess what, the US government subsidizes them to do it. Argentina’s soybean export is it’s largest export product and they are growing them almost exclusively for export because their domestic demand is nowhere near their supply. Think China and their steel capacity, as a corollary. They are usually shipping meal and oil which gets a US-subsidized price back to them in the form of a RIN – Renewable Identification Number – a tradeable EPA-tracked marker that is used to track units (gallons) of “renewables” blended into the US fuel formula. “Renewables” are what we usually, not entirely correctly, call “ethanol”. Imports of soybean oil qualify for a RIN. Ironically, exports of soybean oil from US producers DO NOT. Plus, California, in typical socialist fashion, ADDS a $1 subsidy for biodiesel products PER GALLON, thus setting up an export wall to points west (Asia) for the PROCESSED product, if not the RAW product. So, again, foreign producers subsidized, domestic producers punished.

      Europe, like the US, has full-spectrum use for soybeans, raw or processed. They have been punishing Argentina on their oil products for years (denying market entry, essentially), because Argentina was caught “dumping” into the EU … they are also being sued in the US for similar practices, but they have not been denied entry to our market thus far. Plus, Europe has their own crushers and doesn’t need to import in the form of oil, necessarily. China, and much of Asia, have not ramped up biofuel use as much as the US and Europe, so the majority of their demand is for RAW soybeans, a mismatch with much of what Argentina produces. Brazil, may be another story, but I know less about their market … my point is, the China moves on soybeans are a little bit bunky from the get-go.

      Trump is trying to maintain the raw soybean market for US producers and just might be putting a stake in the ground for future action on the irresponsible subsidy regime regarding biofuels. It IS confusing, I hope I didn’t make it worse.

      Liked by 4 people

      • tampafan says:

        I understand the conversion of farmland to soybeans and corn for feed and ethanol, and the consolidation of farms into “Big Ag” firms that have monopoly on market access, has crippled/eliminated small and regional farms in US and Mexico. How does opening up the global market for soybeans help the “main street” farmers? A prior post discussed the $12B subsidy as support as Trump transitions economy to help individual farmers. I am confused. Very interested in how NAFTA and Trump economic programs, The Farm Bill, etc., help the smaller farmers.
        (My family had a holstein dairy farm in VT – now gone).

        Like

        • Your question is a bit beyond my expertise, but I can proffer an opinion, which my dad always says is “one of those things that’s always worth what you pay for it, and mine is free.” I dont think opening markets helps the individual farmer per se as opposed to shoring up the sector (as socialists like to call these things) against immediate weakness and attack. This is likely a several step process because what would really help individual farmers is a sort of deregulation (volume-incentivized subsidies linked strangely enough to big ag priorities, centralized price structures, etc.) much of which, frankly, is not going to happen without some gut shots. I can tell you, however, that I have seen a couple different approaches and none of them are magic bullets, because supply-demand and economies of scale are truly inviolable natural laws. I’ll give a brief example. I do work with growers in Mexico. They have a more stark dichotomy there: large agri-corps, mostly foreign, that are organized and achieve scale and the sophistication to enter the US market primarily. Then, there are near-subsistence growers who DO have sellable excess capacity, but much of it rots because they lack the capital and sophistication to take advantage of markets further afield. Set aside, for now external influences like corruption, etc which are real enough. There is opportunity there and the people I work with aggregate these smaller growers, take a financial interest in the success of the growers, teach best practices and value (co-ops, local processing, etc) and then distribute the excess domestically. They STILL dont sell in US because the sticker shock for access to this market blows them away. You can divine for yourself all the barriers within this situation. No easy solution, but essentially subsidizing big-ag practices is a totally unfair double whammy against independent growers and needs to be addressed.

          Again, I hope my post doesn’t make LESS sense of your original question. Its Friday, maybe we should open the Chardonnay early.

          Like

          • G. Combs says:

            Thanks for the info. I am happy to hear that someone is helping ‘near-subsistence growers’ in Mexico.

            The fact that 10 corporations control 80% of the world’s food supply scares the heck out of me!

            Larouche had this: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_cartel_companies.html

            “Here are strategic profiles of 11 of the principal companies that constitute the food cartel. These companies dominate grain, meat, dairy, and other food production, and the processing and distribution system of food.”

            (Two of the companies have since merged.)

            Like

      • Dan says:

        This is why you get better information from the treehouse comment section than from the US media, even the better financial press. Good work!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Donna in Oregon says:

        Thank you Good Heavens. It helps explain the conflicting reports I keep reading. So these reports are not delineating/explaining the process the soybean shipment is designated for. Soybeans have multiple uses and processes, like fossil fuels, processed and sold different ways from the original producer.

        I think that’s what it means.

        Globalist shenanigans, convoluted…..

        Like

  8. jmclever says:

    I’m a little disappointed. I didnt get to hear the Wilburine call the interviewer’s assumptions “ridiculous.” Can usually count on at least once per interview. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Dennis Leonard says:

    CNN ran a story about this,the company was actually moving some stuff to Mexico and China.
    ” Like, we’re going right now to the state of Illinois where the President is going to be celebrating this steel company’s expansion, but this is also a state –- we’re not far away from there — the biggest manufacturer of nails has been laying off people, they say, because of the President’s policies. What do you say to those people? Should they just suffer in the meantime?”

    Liked by 1 person

    • WSB says:

      It sounds as if this company may have had other issues affecting their business model; however, it they were purchasing raw material from China, they should attempt to purchase raw material in the US.

      The price for raw goods in the aluminum and steel industry should even out as these mills come back on line.

      Like

    • sat0422 says:

      When one is laid off with no hope of returning to a job, they look for other employment, don’t they?

      Like

    • NvMtnOldMan says:

      Dennis—I quit using nails as they were usually no good, made with Chinese steel. Most contractors use screws instead of nails also.

      Like

      • sturmudgeon says:

        Yes… I have been When I was a kid, I don’t remember many nails “bending”, even with a kid’s uneven smacks…

        Like

        • sturmudgeon says:

          that should have read “I have been disappointed with both nails and screws purchased today.. When I was a kid…..
          In addition to the nail problems, the screw heads often break off…

          Like

  10. tjm says:

    Isn’t this going to destroy small farms in Europe? Small farmers in Europe are our natural allies, culturally speaking. This news, and hearing Pompeo on Crimea the other day, have got me scratching my head. Looks a lot like globalism and militarism and neoconservatism.

    Like

    • Cesare says:

      I too wonder about this. The rural culture in Europe could be devastated depending on how this works out. And that is a culture worthy of defense as any America First agenda. In this regard I believe the preservation of subsidies will be the most important aspect of these negotiations. But even in Europe the family farm is much altered and has to be competitive. It may be primarily a question of more modernization where even our farms are beginning to fall behind.(to moderators:corrected version)

      Like

    • David A says:

      Please be more specific and explain your reasoning.

      Like

      • tjm says:

        If you’re a social conservative, then you should want to support small farmers in Europe against huge agribusiness entities in the USA or elsewhere. Large-scale global economic efficiency is not the summum bonum; at the national or local level it’s a question of preserving a way of life. Preserving a way of life is what typically, and rightly, motivates people to spill their blood if necessary. I realize libertarians may be less impressed with this argument, although perhaps they see huge US agribusinesses as examples of crony capitalism. As to Pompeo on Crimea, I don’t see why we shouldn’t in principle be willing to accept the referendum as the legitimate expression of the will of the (mostly Russian-speaking) people. The Ukrainian coup of Feb. ’14 seems to have been engineered with a lot of neocon help, with the objective of bringing the Ukraine into NATO and to turn Sevastopol, where the Russians have been for centuries, into a US naval base. Here both social conservatives and libertarians should be united as non-interventionists. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xB9TzZKUXM) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeSfvA4cCtg)

        Like

    • G. Combs says:

      The Battle to Save the Polish Countryside. Julian Rose exposes the scandal of EU’s deliberate policy to get rid of family farms….

      Independent farmers whether in the the USA, the EU or Mexico were and are targeted for removal by the WTO/EU and the Ag Cartel.

      F. William Engdahl says WTO/HACCP rules put free-trade of agribusiness above national health concerns.“The IPC was created in 1987 to lobby for the GATT agriculture rules of WTO at the Uruguay GATT talks. The IPC demanded removal of ‘high tariff’ barriers in developing countries, remaining silent on the massive government subsidy to agribusiness in the USA…. The IPC is controlled by US-based agribusiness giants which benefit from the rules they drafted for WTO trade…”
      h t tp://www.globalresearch.ca/wto-gmo-and-total-spectrum-dominance/2202

      John Munsell, Manager, Foundation for Accountability in Regulatory Enforcement also writes about HACCP’S Disconnect From Public Health Concerns
      h t tps://archive.org/details/perma_cc_QY5L-XRW6

      These new international regulations have nothing to do with making food safe. They are about forcing family farmers off the land CHEAPLY via fines, bankruptcy and government confiscation. As world population expands, the demand for arable land should soar. At least that’s what George Soros, Lord Rothschild, and other investors believe. The elite are not about to allow family farmers to cash in on the next big boom cycle. We already know that regulations are preferentially enforced thanks to the ‘regulatory capture’ and The Revolving Door Between Gov’t And Big Business
      h t tp://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/17561617164/mapping-out-revolving-door-between-govt-big-business-venn-diagrams.shtml

      Like

  11. Robert Fisher says:

    I applaud the efforts here by PDT. His hardest thing to got to the three 0s will be reducing the welfare in the Farm Bill. The EU and Canada will demand that. Same thing in the EU. The entrenched subsidies are protective bureaucracy will not die easily.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Vincent Piotet says:

    POTUS is simplifying everything.
    What a concept …
    Swamp pain!
    I like.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. snellvillebob says:

    I doubt if the usage of nails in this country has gone down so the people who are not buying nails from the failing company are gettign them somewhere. Maybe from someone using US made steel instead of imported steel from China like they should have been all around. This is nothing more than a scab falling off.

    Like

    • sat0422 says:

      Maybe higher interest rates are cooling the buiding of new homes and the demand has shifted. Maybe….just saying. Lots of concrete is used in commercial building, isn’t it?

      Like

  14. StuckInBlue says:

    It’s amazing how much more is getting accomplished with President Trump’s negotiators instead of having the US Chamber of Commerce write the ‘agreement’ to the benefit of the multinationals and then bribing the Congresscritters to sell it.

    Liked by 7 people

  15. daughnworks247 says:

    And here come the good ole’ regular Americans. We understand exactly what President Trump is doing.
    This is a very cool campaign.
    #MadeInUSA – employ Americans
    #PostItAmerica – which are made in Kentucky, use a post-it to leave a note
    #DontBuyFromChina – they’re picking on our farmers
    Take your pic and post it to social media.

    Like

  16. Lloyd Wirr Daub says:

    Excellent questions. This is what happens when journalists are professionals and ethical, instead of clowns mugging for the TV cameras, or posting clickbait on social media for WWW trolls.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s