OtherGround Forums Real US economic stats tell the true story...

11 days ago
7/13/17
Posts: 4059
Pedro Navaja -
dabigchet - 

OP, african american employment is the lowest in history, that is the only stat that matters. plus, time began in 2016. everybody knows that. MAGA!


And Trump personally freed ASAP rocky! My god this Trump is such an ally to the african american community. KAG!

I mean criminal reform didn't help a single black person, but I know that doesn't fit your TDS agenda.     

11 days ago
4/27/15
Posts: 12388

I love getting a glimpse of the day's ShareBlue memo.  Good job, stalwart

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 49207

LOL, subbed for later 

11 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 5
Pablo has been forced to flee his 3rd world cesspool in order to afford shoes, chains, and modern medicine, yet clings to outdated socialist arguments? Why? Is it ignorance? lack of education? Direction from a father figure? We may never know.

We do however know that, as usual, he wrong.

"President Obama – who presided over an average GDP growth of 1.65 percent – proved himself no economic Nostradamus when he said: “Two percent real GDP growth is the new normal for the U.S. economy.” Really? It shouldn’t be and under this administration, it’s not. GDP growth during the Trump administration has been nearly twice the Obama average, and was more than four percent in the second quarter of 2018."

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/state-the-union-2019-the-trump-economy-success-story-not-even-his

You are welcome my little friend.

Le Shat
11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 8501
Pedro Navaja - 



The 2019 data on here appears to be using preliminary, not final data. Keep in mind, the data released on the first Friday of the month is preliminary for the just completed month, an initial update for 2 months ago, and final for 3 months prior. As an example, the August 2nd release had the July preliminary data (this is what's normally reported), June update, and final data for May.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12000000

Using only the months with final data....

In January, we lost 251K jobs. We gained 255K in February (most of this should have been due to the government shutdown affecting January). We lost 201K in March. We lost 103K in April. We gained 113K in May.

Those are the only five months we have final data for in 2019. June and July both showed gains, but the final data is where we should be looking.
11 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 11027

You should be happy trumps economy is so good. It’s the only reason shariablue still pays you minimum wage. 

11 days ago
7/13/17
Posts: 4063

Pedro is the don Lemon of the og 

 

11 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 7947
Le Shat V2 - Pablo has been forced to flee his 3rd world cesspool in order to afford shoes, chains, and modern medicine, yet clings to outdated socialist arguments? Why? Is it ignorance? lack of education? Direction from a father figure? We may never know.

We do however know that, as usual, he wrong.

"President Obama – who presided over an average GDP growth of 1.65 percent – proved himself no economic Nostradamus when he said: “Two percent real GDP growth is the new normal for the U.S. economy.” Really? It shouldn’t be and under this administration, it’s not. GDP growth during the Trump administration has been nearly twice the Obama average, and was more than four percent in the second quarter of 2018."

https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/state-the-union-2019-the-trump-economy-success-story-not-even-his

You are welcome my little friend.

Le Shat

Nice. Stop drinking the kool-aid:

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/03/07/economy-fact-check-donald-trump-gdp/3097020002/

 

The White House is claiming the economy grew 3.1 percent last year, while the statisticians at the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis put growth at 2.9 percent. What gives?
 
Answer: The White House is spinning the numbers, focusing on a little-used measure to make the economy look a little more robust than it does measured the usual way.
 
In fact, real gross domestic product (which is adjusted for inflation) was 2.9 percent higher in 2019 than it was in 2018, according to BEA’s most recent release. (That’s BEA’s “initial estimate,” which could be adjusted up or down slightly on March 28, when BEA plans to update its figures with more complete data.)
 
That’s a disappointing figure for Trump, as it is still well below the 4 to 6 percent growth he promised repeatedly, bothwhen he was a candidate andalso as president. The 2018 figure is no better than the real GDP growth in 2015, which was Obama’s best year.
 

 

 

 

White House economists , however, focus on a different measure, one not normally used by economists in or out of government to gauge annual growth: BEA’s Table 1.1.11, which measures the change between the last quarter of the year compared to the same quarter a year earlier.
 
Voila! Now 2018 becomes a “banner year” with growth at “the fastest pace for any calendar year since 2005,” in the words of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The White House website carries a headline banner saying “America’s economy achieves 3 percent growth for the first time in 13 years,” which isn’t as carefully worded, and is not correct.
 
IFrame
The CEA’s claim involves some careful wording and statistical cherry-picking. It’s true that 2005 was the last time fourth-quarter GDP was 3 percent or more above the same quarter a year earlier. That’s what the CEA means by referring to “calendar year.” But there have been five other 12-month periods in the past 13 years when, measured the same way, GDP grew faster, and twice when it equaled the 3 percent rate touted by the White House website.
 
It grew 3.4 percent in the 12 months ending in the second quarter of 2015, for example. And it grew 3.8 percent in the 12 months ending in the first quarter of that year. It also grew 3.2 in the 12 months ending in the third quarter of 2010. Those were all during Obama’s tenure.
 
Similarly, under President George W. Bush, growth from a year earlier was 3.4 percent in the first quarter of 2006, and 3.1 percent in the second quarter of that year.
 
 
Also, growth equaled 3 percent in the 12 months ending in the third quarter of 2014 under Obama, contrary to the claim in the White House website banner, and again in the third quarter of 2018 under Trump.
 
 
11 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 7948

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/trumps-economic-policies-failed-to-deliver-promised-3percent-growth-in-2018.html

 

Instead of annual 2018 growth, the White House emphasized a different growth measure comparing growth from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the fourth quarter of 2018.

By that measure, the economy grew 3.1 percent. But Obama, too, reached 3 percent growth on a four-quarter basis four different times.

Where Obama failed to enjoy 3 percent annual growth was on the BEA’s official annual number. His 2015 peak was 2.9 percent, like Trump’s for 2018. Thursday’s preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.

 

NEXT

11 days ago
12/29/09
Posts: 26548

Literally no proof of being racist. Like 10 ten times he's denounced all hate groups. There's proof on youtube. Hope this helps.

11 days ago
8/7/19
Posts: 7
LMAO @ admitted socialists crying about the economy.

You girls do the same thing every time, cry and nitpick, but if we instituted your policies fully we would go off the cliff just like Venezuela and every other country where you dolts take control.

Sit back and let the adults drive. We'll give you a social program for finger painting and tranny story time.

You're welcome,

Le Shat
11 days ago
2/2/15
Posts: 7669

"

African Americans had higher income prior to the Trump administration. A black household earned median income of $40,258 in 2017, the latest data available. That's below a 2000 peak of $42,348, according to the Census Bureau."

So it peaked in 2000, what was it under Barry O? Lower than 2000 as well? Lower than 2017 as well?

" most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017."

Wasn't Trump elected in 2016? What was the drop in black unemployment from his inauguration to January 2017? How about from his inauguration to present?

You're being very dishonest here. Not surprising coming from a Share Blue shill.

 

11 days ago
2/2/15
Posts: 7670


some garlic for Pedro
11 days ago
3/25/19
Posts: 3421
Al Cappucino -
HighInsideLegKick -

Not going to make many friends with this post Pedro! I still like ya though. 

 

If you ever came to Indiana we could definitely go fuck some shit up together. 

Who in the fuck wants to ever go to Indiana? On purpose??

 

Granted its still light years better than the shithole Pedro lives in...but thats like saying shit tastes better from a rich person because of the food they eat. Its still shit.  

Shut up you pathetic old piece of shit. You're past your prime so your opinion doesn't matter anymore. 

 

Indiana is greatest state in the world! 

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10523

popcorn.gif

Edited: 11 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3915

Here is what is really going on. Don't fall for fear mongering.

Realignment of the global economy after the Bretton Woods status quo was inevitable.

After WW2 the US pretty much bribed every nation to align with it and its allies instead of the communists.  It would enter into trade deals that were more favorable to those nations than the US and would guarantee the safety of the commerce throught the US military.  

Demographic trends, political instability across the world, the housing bubble in Europe, increased US energy independence, etc., all favor the US.  What is going on right now is an unwinding of the previous status quo and the US beginning a more transactional approach to trade.

11 days ago
12/26/05
Posts: 42780

This thread is going poorly for the racist stalwarts 

11 days ago
3/13/17
Posts: 7950

Nice. So no one was able to actually dispute the facts. Good to know!

Thread success!

11 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 51790
David@accu -
Pedro Navaja - 
David@accu - 

Sure thing Orcus


Excellent rebuttal.


You're a troll. What's there to rebut?

The actual facts. 

 

But of course if it's a poster you guys don't like, you'll do anything and everything to avoid those facts and just call names and deflect. 

 

Par for the course. OGers like yourself want an echo chamber. 

11 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 51791
Bilge Water -

"

African Americans had higher income prior to the Trump administration. A black household earned median income of $40,258 in 2017, the latest data available. That's below a 2000 peak of $42,348, according to the Census Bureau."

So it peaked in 2000, what was it under Barry O? Lower than 2000 as well? Lower than 2017 as well?

" most dramatic drop in black unemployment came under Obama, when it fell from a recession high of 16.8 percent in March 2010 to 7.8 percent in January 2017."

Wasn't Trump elected in 2016? What was the drop in black unemployment from his inauguration to January 2017? How about from his inauguration to present?

You're being very dishonest here. Not surprising coming from a Share Blue shill.

 

The answers are right in the follow up charts, and the link. None of it is #fakenews,  you just don't loke what it says. 

11 days ago
10/15/13
Posts: 30818
HighInsideLegKick -
Al Cappucino -
HighInsideLegKick -

Not going to make many friends with this post Pedro! I still like ya though. 

 

If you ever came to Indiana we could definitely go fuck some shit up together. 

Who in the fuck wants to ever go to Indiana? On purpose??

 

Granted its still light years better than the shithole Pedro lives in...but thats like saying shit tastes better from a rich person because of the food they eat. Its still shit.  

Shut up you pathetic old piece of shit. You're past your prime so your opinion doesn't matter anymore. 

 

Indiana is greatest state in the world! 

Its ranked 36th in the Country.

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings

 

Not sure what it would be ranked in the world...but im sure its like somewhere in the 90's.

 

Indiana sucks.

 

 

11 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3916
Pedro Navaja -

Nice. So no one was able to actually dispute the facts. Good to know!

Thread success!

Reasons Why The US Will Dominate The World Economy For The Foreseeable Future

There are a couple of things going on simultaneously. First, because of demographic aging on a global scale, the United States is emerging as the only market over the long-term. Second, the United States is backing away from the world. It is reducing the American footprint overseas while its ability to intervene increases. What we have done with Special Forces, what we are doing with drones, what we are doing with satellite tech—the ability to reach out is higher than it has been for decades. But our need to do that with troops on the ground or maintaining the day-to-day order of the international system is going away. Third, Trump is taking a lot of the trends that already existed in American politics and kicked them up a notch. We are already going through this period of new isolationism and here comes a trade warrior who wants to renegotiate every trade deal on the books, specifically fingering Mexico and China, two of our three biggest trading partners.

You put these three things together and you get a United States that is transitioning from being the global guarantor of security, global trade, and energy markets to one that, at best, has stepped back from it all and, more likely, even sees a vested interest in disrupting it to a certain degree. At the same time, the U.S. is the only market. The split between successful countries and failed countries in the future is how well can you buddy up with the only country that matters? Everything else is going to be a free for all. In the United States, you have the market, the financial capital, the labor system, the consumption base, the energy—and you can project power out, rather than have to defend your own borders. That does not exist anywhere else on the planet, and is not going to exist anywhere else on the planet in the next fifty years. The only question in my mind for the last few years has been “What is the speed of the transition?” Under a President Hillary Clinton, it would have taken four to eight years. Under President-elect Donald Trump, it will probably take four to eight months. The year 2017 is shaping up to be the most dynamic year in international affairs since at least 1945.

High: Are you suggesting that some of what we are seeing with the positive reaction of the markets in the U.S. is symptomatic or emblematic of some positive economic changes for the U.S.? Are these sustainable from your perspective?

Zeihan: I would not bet too much on any specific economic trend that seems to be manifested on Wall Street for the last couple of weeks. The market had fully positioned itself for a Clinton victory and when that did not happen, everyone went scrambling in every other direction they could imagine. Whether Trump’s economic plans are good for the mid- and the long-term, we really do not know yet. The first of three things that Trump says he is going to attack in his first couple of months is corporate tax reform, which is solid. I think there is a surprising amount of bipartisan support for that in Congress already. The second is healthcare. That will be a hell of a fight, but with control over Congress, the Executive Branch and, probably very soon, the courts, that is one that Trump can win, just not in the first 30 days. The third one is immigration. In the first stage, it is going to be about capacity building. If he really is serious about doing mass deportations, then there will need to be a fair overhaul and bulking up of INS. That is not something you can do in a month. Those three policies are not going to generate short-term results. We will not see the first economic outcome for that for two years, so do not hold your breath.

High: Given the power that America will have to choose the markets in which to emphasize, where do you believe the country should focus?

Zeihan: First, I would argue that the U.S. has not had a meaningful foreign policy towards either East Asian or Western Europe since the Bush senior administration. The Clinton administration did not have a foreign policy. In the George W. Bush administration, it was all Middle East, all the time. In the Obama administration, the Russian reset and the pivot towards Asia were basically just a little bit of window dressing to cover the fact that we were cancelling our Middle East policy. So, we have really not had a functional foreign policy in any meaningful sense of the term for twenty-five years.

In my view, the two areas where it makes the most sense for the United States to engage in a constructive manner are Latin American, specifically Mexico, and Southeast Asia, specifically Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar and Vietnam. These are the parts of the world that have good demography and where a combination of local consumptive capacity could marry well with American technology and military policy. Anywhere else in the world, you are going to deal with collapsing demographies so there is no market to access. If you go to the Persian Gulf, you are going to be in the middle of a Saudi Arabian knife fight. If you go into Europe, you must deal with the Russian resurgence. If you go into East Asian, you must deal with what is brewing into a Japan/Korea/Taiwan/China fight. You do not have to deal with that in Southeast Asia. Half the population is under thirty. You do not have to deal with that with Mexico, which is already the U.S.’s number one or number two trade partner, depending on how you do the data. These two regions are easy. They do not have a lot of heartburn and they offer a lot in terms of resources and markets.

11 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3917

High: Explain the basis of the global world order for the past 70 years.

Zeihan: Before World War II, you did not trade with your neighbors if you could help it because any military conflict anywhere in the world could disrupt what were ganglion supply chains, even if you were not the target of a war. You kept everything in house, expanded into empire, and used your navy to protect your internal trade. World War II ultimately brought the whole system crashing down. Since the United States was the only country involved in the war that did not have fighting on its soil, it could impose a replacement system at Bretton Woods in 1944. Bretton Woods worked fundamentally differently. Instead of everybody having their own sequestered imperial economy, everything was put into a global bucket. Everyone who was represented at Bretton Woods could access that bucket for resources and markets. And the U.S. Navy guaranteed the security of the seas for absolutely everyone. This had never been attempted before.

It worked for two reasons. One, the U.S. did the protecting; and two, the U.S., whose market survived the war, opened that market to all the allies and allowed them to export their way back to affluence. We did this not because we were nice, but because we were basically bribing an alliance. The catch of Bretton Woods was if you wanted all this access, you had to allow the United States to fight the Cold War its way. It started with the wartime allies and eventually expanded it to the Axis in the 1950’s—Latin American, Northern Europe, Scandinavians, we eventually brought in Southeast Asia—and by the time we got to the end of the Cold War, you had over half the global system as part of this network.

The problem is that Americans were so impressed with the end of the Cold War that we picked a domestic candidate for the next six or seven elections. The free trade aspect of Bretton Woods was allowed to linger on while the security quid pro quo, which was the American justification for it in the first place, fell by the wayside. For the last twenty-five years, we have been backing away from that system. That has made the world a lot more chaotic and has allowed things like Syria, the Japanese financial crisis, and European financial crisis to happen. Had any of these things happened in the 1960’s or 1970’s, the United States would have stepped in with a massive financial and/or military involvement to stymie it. We are not doing that anymore so you have military conflicts around the world breaking out.

Today, we are at the verge of American withdrawal from active management. The secondary powers that have had their economic security provided to them basically free of charge now must start looking after their own affairs. Most of them are not ready. Of those that are, they are not the kind of countries that we normally associate with ones that we want to be world leaders. The Russians are asserting influence into central Europe. That is going to provoke a response from Sweden and Germany, probably Turkey, too. The American withdrawal from the Persian Gulf leaves it up to the Iranians and the Saudis to duke it out over who is in charge. The oil price war over the last two years is just the opening round of that. Syria is a piece of that. The next stage is some sort of energy crisis triggered by either Saudi Arabia or Iran or Poland or Russia. If any of those four countries decide to use energy as a weapon, you are talking about a minimum of two million barrels of crude going off line, perhaps as much as twenty-five. Then you get an energy crisis, and that means that the Chinese and the Japanese have to fight for whatever cargos they can access. One way or another, the global system that we are all so used to—and that we just assume operates on autopilot—is going to break down. If Trump lives up to his rhetoric and his pullback is as aggressive as it looks like it is going to be, this next year is the year.

High: There are three hypotheses highlighted in your book, The Accidental Superpower: the reassertion of geopolitics as the rule by which the world operates; global demographic inversions; and shale energy, which by making U.S. energy independent in many ways could be the lubricant of a lot what you have just described. Can you walk us through these three hypotheses and the importance of the U.S.’s position for the foreseeable future?

11 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3918

Zeihan:  First, geopolitics. Policy, culture, finance—everything is shaped by physical geography. Some countries have extreme advantages over others. If you have a lot of flat lands and rivers for natural transport corridors, it is very easy to develop and expand. The cost of moving goods on water is about one-twelfth of what it is on land. Countries like France or Germany or Japan or the United States have a massive leg up in their ability to generate financial, economic, industrial, and agricultural power. That translates into everything else that they do and makes them major military powers as well. Bretton Woods made that not matter because it put everybody in the same club. It told countries that they could not use military power to impress their will upon others. Free trade gave everybody access. Free movement of capital made the countries that were relatively capital poor, whether they are Brazil or India or Spain, the ability to function as strong secondary powers for the first time in history. All of these things in economic competition that had driven imperial competition for centuries were suddenly given for free.

You remove Bretton Woods and it all starts up again. The Germans must start looking after their own interests. The Japanese cannot rely on the protection of the American Navy and freedom of the seas for their imports and exports. The Chinese, who were probably the biggest beneficiaries of Bretton Woods, actually have to go back to their 4,000 years of internal strife because they lack projection capacity. They are caged by their own geography. This story is going to repeat over and over across the world. All of those secondary powers that used to be major empires all of a sudden have to start acting imperial again. And that is going to generate everything from energy crises to famines to military conflicts.

Number two is demography. People of different ages act differently. For those in their twenties and thirties, it is all about consumption. Their incomes are low; it is house loans, car loans, college loans. High growth, but high debt. For your mature workers in their 40's, 50's, and 60's, they are preparing for retirement and their incomes are very high. This is all the investment capital that makes the world move. This is the tax base. Young folks do the consuming. Older folks take care of the investment capital. Finally, once they retire they start drawing more from the system than they put in. Pensions and health care start to overwhelm their finances and that becomes a problem for governments.

In a traditional demography, the elderly are the smallest group. The folks in the middle group are larger and the young workers make up the bulk. It is a pyramid. But with urbanization and the post-World War II experience, we have had a collapse in birth rate throughout most of the world and now the demography is completely inverted in a lot of the world: the big bulge in the demography is not the young worker but the mature worker who is socking away a lot of capital for retirement and paying huge taxes.

By the time you get to 2022, the majority of the baby boomers will have retired, and they will take all that investment capital and all that tax money with them. Every government on the planet is going to have to get along with a lot less income while they have to dish out a lot more payment for the retirees. There is only one country in the world that is an exception to that: the United States, because we are the only place where the boomers actually had kids. We come out on the other end all right because the millennial generation is large and by the time they are in their 40's and 50's, our demographics will have more or less fixed themselves. That does not happen anywhere else. Everywhere else, the population gets older every year, the population gets less skilled every year, and financial costs go up every year. The European financial crisis, the Japanese financial crisis—these are as good as they will ever be right now. It is all downhill from here.  While the United States is losing interest in maintaining the global system, at the same time the global structure breaks down, the United States is becoming the only market in the world. And it is going to be keeping to itself. That is a triple hit to every economy in the world. If you are a trade-based economy like Korea or China or Germany, you get hit from every possible angle at the same time.

Number three is shale. It all comes down to full cycle breakeven prices: how much does it cost to get a barrel of crude on average out of the ground including everything from exploration on the front end, to production costs, to mid-stream piping, to taxes on the back end? In the big four shale fields in the United States, the breakeven price is about $40 per barrel. So U.S. shale—what we have always thought of as the really expensive stuff—is now cost-competitive with every energy basin in the world outside of the Persian Gulf itself. There is a whole suite of new technologies-- things like refracking and multi-lateral drilling, in-drilling, and water tanks—that are coming together to make a new best practices suite, merging with Big Data and that price structure is still going down. By the time we get to January 2019, we will probably be at about $25 per barrel. Because of that cost structure, you are seeing U.S. energy output increasing despite weak prices. Unless the bottom falls out of the oil markets and we go down to $20 per barrel, I see no reason for that to change. You will undoubtedly see North America achieving full energy independence within a couple of years and with a little tweak in the price structure by the end of this term, it is entirely possible that not just North America will be energy-independent, but the United States itself might be very close.

11 days ago
12/6/16
Posts: 3919

High: You have also talked about three sectors that are going to be impacted more than any others on a more sustained basis: finance, manufacturing, and agri-business. Can you talk about why that is the case?

Zeihan: Finance is pretty straightforward. Because of the demographic shift, the United States is the only country that is going to be generating a lot of its own internal financial heft. We have more of a balance between our retirees, our mid-age workers, and our young workers, whereas everyone else is aging into this mass retirement. The second piece is almost as important. As the world breaks down, money is mobile. We are already seeing a surge of skilled migrants moving away from countries that are in the economic doldrums and/or where civil breakdown is starting to happen to the United States. Based on whose numbers you use and how you define net versus gross, in calendar year 2015, there was $800 billion of capital flight from the Eurozone and another $800 billion of capital flight from China into North America. Ninety percent of that ended up in the United States. Because of American stability versus the rest of the world, we are basically importing everybody else’s capital and this is the only safe place to put it.

With manufacturing, there are also two big factors in play. The first, of course, is demographics. If you are the only major consumption center, most countries and most companies want to pre-position their productive facilities as close to the end consumer as possible so they can get on the right side of security risk and currency risk. If you look at countries like Japan and companies like Toyota, their biggest facilities are in the United States now.

The second factor is a little bit more complicated. Pre-Bretton Woods, you would have giant industrial cities, industrial complexes, where inputs would be brought in; they would be processed into basic intermediate and finished goods all in the same area; and then those goods would be exported. You did this because you could not risk international supply chains. You never knew when they were going to be disrupted. Post-Bretton Woods the seas become safe, finance is easy, and you can build an industrial plant anywhere. Instead of building things in one place, you would break up that production cycle into supply chains that were several, dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of steps long. Now, three-quarters of the world’s supply chains are in Northern Europe, where you have to deal with the Russian flight, or Northeast Asia, where you have to deal with the Chinese and Japanese flight. We are on the verge of a world where imports, input, production, and consumption do not just need to be physically protected. They need to be co-located. Right now, the only place where that happens is North America. We have already seen a fairly substantial reshoring process from China to North America since 2008—that is about four million jobs. Expect that to double down really quick.

The third, agri-business, is pretty basic. When you make international transports safe, you allow countries that do not have the ability to grow a lot of food to grow something else. Egypt got into cotton. Korea started making cars and washing machines. They can use the import earnings from those products to then purchase food on international markets. The international markets for both those exports and imports are going away, not to mention that the ability of countries to import fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is going to be constrained. The countries that import all this crop are countries that have had the fastest population growth over the last sixty years. The countries that have joined the ranks of the major agricultural powers over the last sixty years are those that need imported capital and imported inputs. The result is probably a thirty to forty percent reduction in the ability of the world to grow food, much less transport it to end markets, much less those end markets’ ability to pay for it in the first place. We are staring down famine that is continental in scope and which will probably hit Asian and Africa the hardest. If you are in a country that has a net export capacity for food stuffs and has the military capacity to make sure that those crops get to their end destination, you are set. There are only six countries in the world that can expand their agricultural footprint: New Zealand, Australia, Myanmar, Argentina, France, and the United States. Of those, only Australia, New Zealand, France and the U.S. guarantee shipments of food products. If you are a farmer in one of those countries, you are set because you can have access to a starving world that will pay whatever it can to get your output. Reliability will be key, and you can guarantee that. No one else can.