Pubblicato in: Agricoltura, Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Stati Uniti

Biden ed il bacon aumentato del 17%, le bistecche del 16.6% anno su anno.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2021-10-06.

2021-10-04__ Biden Meat 001

Giusto il 1° di ottobre lo US Department of Commerce ha rilasciato la stima del PEC: varrebbe 4.3%.

Lo U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics stima invece l’indice dei prezzi alla produzione, Producer Price Index, PPI, all’8.3%.

Ma la massaia che va a fare la spesa cozza contro ben più consistenti aumenti: bacon +17%, bistecche di manzo +16.6%, pesce +10.6%.

Per stimare in modo aderente il livello inflattivo, fare un giro al supermercato non guasterebbe affatto.

* * * * * * *

«Can the US tackle rising beef prices?»

«It’s not Covid keeping shoppers away, but the price of meat, which has risen sharply across the US lately»

«the wholesale cost of goat meat has climbed from around $8 to $10 a pound, while beef is up from $5 to $6»

«When meat is expensive, people eat less»

«Yet average meat prices have risen unusually sharply, with beef up 14% since December 2020, pork by 12.1% and poultry 6.6%»

«Dalle auto ai vestiti, il costo della vita è saltato per i consumatori americani da quando l’economia ha riaperto»

«Just four giants – JBS, Cargill Meat Solutions, Tyson Foods, and National Beef Packing Co – control between 55% and 85% of the market, depending on the meat»

«The industry adamantly denies the claims, saying the price rises are not due to consolidation. Instead it blames pandemic-related supply chain issues, including an “acute” labour shortage which led to plant closures last year»

«The Biden administration is moving forward with its plans. In September, it said it would give $1.4bn of additional aid to small producers, processors, distributors, farmers markets, seafood processors and food and farm workers affected by Covid or extreme weather, to make the US food supply chain more resilient»

«Yet some commentators doubt the plans will work, warning that smaller meat processors will never be able to compete with giants who can outspend them»

* * * * * * *

Cerchiamo di ragionare, nei limiti del possibile.

La massaia americana che va a fare la spesa quotidiana non sa proprio che farsene della ridda dei dati macroeconomici, di PEC, CPI, PPI e via quant’altro: vive felicemente ignorandone la esistenza.

Ma il bacon rincarato del 17% nel volgere di un anno lo capisce più che bene.

Si tenga presente che le massaie votano anche loro.

* * * * * * *


Biden v Big Meat: Can the US tackle rising beef prices?

It is a typically bustling day in “Little India”, a part of Queens in New York City that many South Asian immigrants call home. But things are much quieter at the Al Noor Meat Market, a local halal butchers on 73rd Street.

It’s not Covid keeping shoppers away, but the price of meat, which has risen sharply across the US lately.

Shakeel Anjum, 36, a butcher at the shop, says the wholesale cost of goat meat has climbed from around $8 to $10 a pound, while beef is up from $5 to $6.

“When meat is expensive, people eat less,” he says, adding that the shop has put up its own prices to cope. “Business is very slow.”

According to his co-worker Raza Jawed, 50, it’s big suppliers that are to blame. “They have come together and put up their prices,” he says. “We can’t do anything, they have all the power.”

From cars to clothing, the cost of living has jumped for US consumers since the economy reopened. Yet average meat prices have risen unusually sharply, with beef up 14% since December 2020, pork by 12.1% and poultry 6.6%.

Consumers are increasingly concerned about rising grocery bills, and the White House has vowed to act. Part of the problem, it says, is a that a few big meat processing companies dominate US supply, allowing them to charge what they like.

In an executive order in July, the president pledged $500m in federal loans and grants to help new meat processors enter the market and compete with the big players, in an attempt to bring down prices.

The administration is investigating “price-fixing” in the chicken-processing industry (which has already led to a $107m fine for Pilgrim’s Pride, a Colorado based supplier). And it plans to tighten the laws governing competition in the meat industry.

Yet the major processors say the administration is “scapegoating” them and has misunderstood the “fundamentals” of the market.

                         What’s the beef about?

Concern about meat prices is nothing new in America. In 1921, President Woodrow Wilson passed the Packers and Stockyards Act (which is still in force today) to rein in big meat processors who were similarly reported to be controlling prices.

And in 1973 President Richard Nixon imposed ceilings on the price of beef, pork and lamb as the cost of living soared.

These moves had limited success, and since the 1980s the meat processing industry has become highly consolidated as regulators have struggled to keep up with a fast-changing industry.

Just four giants – JBS, Cargill Meat Solutions, Tyson Foods, and National Beef Packing Co – control between 55% and 85% of the market, depending on the meat. In the 1970s and 80s, the four largest packing firms controlled just 25-35%.

The White House says this gives them too much power, not just over what they charge retailers and restaurants, but also over what they pay farmers for livestock.

It has come to a head during the pandemic, as consumer demand for meat hit record levels due to people stockpiling or splashing out. Wholesale meat prices jumped and livestock or poultry prices fell, leaving some farmers unable to make a profit.

Meanwhile, the biggest processors have seen record, or near record, profits and margins, leading the White House to accuse them of “pandemic profiteering”.

“Since the 1980s we’ve had concentration without oversight [in the processing industry] and that is a problem,” says Joshua Specht, an environmental historian at Notre Dame University in Indiana. “The meatpackers are capturing more and more of the US food dollar.”

The industry adamantly denies the claims, saying the price rises are not due to consolidation. Instead it blames pandemic-related supply chain issues, including an “acute” labour shortage which led to plant closures last year.

“Multiple, unprecedented market shocks, including a global pandemic and severe weather conditions, led to an unexpected and drastic drop in meat processors’ abilities to operate at full capacity,” Tyson Foods said in a statement last month.

“This led to an oversupply of live cattle and an undersupply of beef, while demand for beef products was at an all-time high. So, as a result, the price for cattle fell, while the price for beef rose. Today, prices paid to cattle producers are rising.”

Ranchers like Brett Kenzy are unconvinced. He thinks there are simply not enough processing firms out there to buy his cattle, sometimes forcing him to accept the one and only bid he gets. Like others, he also suspects the “Big Meat” industry intentionally tries to keep it that way – claims the processors deny.

The farmer, who rears over 3,000 cattle in South Dakota, welcomes the Biden administration’s plans to make the sector more competitive. He says the trend for “cheap cattle and expensive beef” has been hurting his ranch since 2015.

“It’s been really hard,” he says. “We’ve seen some blips of profitability in recent years but some huge losses. We’re just about treading water.”

Like others, the 49-year-old has thought about selling up, but a certain stubbornness stops him. The ranch has been in his family for four generations and he wants to pass it on to his kids.

“I have to remain hopeful we can find a solution,” he says.

R-Calf USA, a group that represents independent cattle farmers, is now suing the big four meat processors, accusing them of conspiring to suppress cattle prices to boost their profits. Tyson called the claims “baseless” while Cargill said they “lacked merit”.

R-Calf USA says pricing problems are hastening the closure of cattle farms across the US, around 17,000 of which shut each year because they aren’t profitable enough.

“It is hollowing out our rural communities and making it hard to recover from Covid,” says chief executive Bill Bullford.

                         Will Biden’s plans work?

The Biden administration is moving forward with its plans. In September, it said it would give $1.4bn of additional aid to small producers, processors, distributors, farmers markets, seafood processors and food and farm workers affected by Covid or extreme weather, to make the US food supply chain more resilient.

It has also begun working with Congress to improve transparency around cattle prices.

Yet some commentators doubt the plans will work, warning that smaller meat processors will never be able to compete with giants who can outspend them. The $500m to bankroll new market entrants is also unlikely to go far without further private investment.

Glynn Tonsor, an agricultural economist at Kansas State University, adds that “multiple things” affect meat prices over time, not just consolidation. He expects current high prices to come down gradually by themselves.

Yet Josh Specht welcomes the administration’s intervention, saying it is seeking “a new approach” to an age-old problem.

“Ranchers have been complaining about this for 100 years, and now consumers are being hit, which has pushed it up the political agenda.

“The administration is trying to change an enormously powerful industry and an enormously important part of the US economy and it’s going to take time.”

Mr Kenzy also thinks the administration is on the right track – he just hopes it follows through.

“If we don’t confront the consolidated power of the meat packers, no-one will be able to compete. We either have to mandate a minimum level of competition, or we go ahead and exercise our rights under anti-trust laws.

“If that means breaking them up, so be it.”

Pubblicato in: Commercio, Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Unione Europea

Trump. Dazi del 220% sugli aerei Bombardier.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-27.

2017-08-04__Trump TELEMMGLPICT000136310797-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqHwnvh86NCImGNxSron0kTyxqUYn5PGopOSNBtx07gTA

Chi si fosse illuso che la affermazione “America First” fosse uno slogan sarà rimasto amaramente deluso.

Non lo è per niente, ed alle parole seguono i fatti.

*

Cercheremo di spiegarci nel più puro, ricercato, cauto e liberal linguaggio politicamente corretto: leggete quindi tra le righe quanto non si potrebbe dire a chiara voce.

Gli stati europei hanno fatto dell’industria aeronautica uno dei più orrendi carrozzoni politici della storia umana, ove la norma è incompetenza e corruzione. Personale liberal e socialista, quote rose ovunque perché “femmina è bello!”, cimitero di costosissimi elefanti dismessi dai ranghi politici, cessi ripartiti per tutte le possibili tipologie, vere o presunte, di sesso degenerato ma pur sempre oltremodo costoso.

I risultati sono prodotti di qualità inferiore a quella offerta dal mercato, e questo sarebbe il meno.

Questa industria aeronautica sopravvive di sovvenzioni dell’Unione Europea e dei vari stati, e ciò nonostante è in triboli perpetui.

Ha quasi cessato di essere un insieme di aziende produttive: sono solo aziende tenute in piedi per mantenere clientes, personale, amici, amanti e grandi elettori. È un immenso voivodato liberal e socialista.

Le partecipate italiane, quelle dei tempi dei centro-sinistra organici, sarebbero gigli in odore si santità a confronto e l’industria aeronautica europea sta avviandosi a grandi passi ad eguagliare la gestione fatta dal partito democratico italiano nelle banche. I pirati della Malesia erano galantuomini.

Viste dall’esterno, assomigliano in tutto e per tutto ad associazioni per delinquere di stampo mafioso.

*

Ci si rende perfettamente conto di quanto questo linguaggio politicamente corretto possa essere criptico, ma confidiamo sull’intelletto dei signori Lettori.

Ci scusiamo di aver parlato in così forbiti termini politicamente corretti, ma nel contempo abbiamo la quasi certezza che qualcuno troverà pur sempre qualcosa da ridire: nel caso lo seppelliremo sotto i faldoni dei bilanci, che tanto hanno incrementato l’industria degli inchiostri rossi.

*

«Bombardier received an unfair subsidy in the form of £135m investment pledge by the UK Government and Northern Ireland’s power sharing administration»

*

«The firm also received $1bn from the Quebec government in 2015»

*

«Bombardier received unfair state subsidies from the UK and Canada, allowing the sale of airliners at below cost price in America.»

*

«Bombardier vowed to fight the ruling which it described as “absurd”. The company is due to start delivery of up to 125 new jets to Delta Airlines next year as part of a $5.6bn (£4.2bn) deal signed in 2016.»

*

«this allowed Bombardier to supply aircraft at in implausibly low price of around £19m, making it impossible for Boeing to compete. Those aircraft will now cost around £61m once the interim tariff is applied»

*

«L’amministrazione Trump ha deciso di imporre dazi antidumping del 220% sugli apparecchi CSeries della canadese Bombardier»

*

È finita un’era: cerchiamo di rendercene conto.



Sole 24 Ore. 2017-09-27. Trump impone dazi del 220% sugli aerei Bombardier. May: «delusa»

L’amministrazione Trump ha deciso di imporre dazi antidumping del 220% sugli apparecchi CSeries della canadese Bombardier. La decisione è arrivata dal Dipartimento del Commercio dopo le proteste di Boeing per presunte sovvenzioni sleali che avrebbero avvantaggiato il costruttore canadese. Secondo il colosso dell’aeronautica statunitense, un ordine di 75 CSeries da parte di Delta Air Lines (del valore di cinque miliardi di dollari) sarebbe stato “viziato” da pratiche scorrette da parte di Bombardier, esattamente come accaduto negli anni Novanta con l’europea Airbus.

La decisione del Dipartimento del Commercio contro Bombardier diventerà effettiva solo se la International Trade Commission statunitense darà ragione a Boeing in una decisione finale attesa per l’anno prossimo.

Intanto il primo ministro inglese Theresa May si è detta «amaramente delusa» per la decisione del governo americano di imporre dazi antidumping del 220% sui prodotti della canadese Bombardier, che impiega migliaia di dipendenti in Irlanda del Nord. «Sono amaramente delusa per la decisione su Bombardier», ha twittato May. «Il governo continuerà a lavorare con il gruppo per salvaguardare i posti di lavoro in Irlanda del Nord», ha aggiunto.

La CSeries è una famiglia di aeroplani di linea a fusoliera stretta (narrow-body) composta da due modelli: CS100 e CS300, in fase di test e prima produzione da parte di Bombardier Aerospace. Il progetto fu annunciato nel 2004, mentre la progettazione e lo sviluppo sono cominciate nel 2008. Il CS110 ha una capienza 100-125 posti e il CS130 di 120-145 posti, a seconda delle configurazioni. I nuovi CSeries montano nuovi motori ecologici costruiti con materiali compositi.

Il progetto CSeries ha costretto Airbus, nel dicembre 2010, a rivisitare i suoi A320 proponendo la versione ri-motorizzata A320neo, per il rischio di perdere quote di mercato nel campo dei velivoli narrow-body della categoria sotto ai 150 posti. La risposta di Airbus al progetto CSeries, ha a sua volta costretto anche Boeing, nell’agosto 2011, ad offrire una versione ri-motorizzata della sua gamma di aerei a fusoliera stretta, proponendo il Boeing 737 MAX.


Independent. 2017-09-27. US Bombardier ruling: Theresa May ‘bitterly disappointed’ at Trump administration tariff decision

Bombardier employs around 4,200 people in Belfast and thousands more jobs in Northern Ireland are supported through the manufacturer’s supply chain.

*

Prime Minister Theresa May is “bitterly disappointed” by a US Department of Commerce decision to impose a tariff of nearly 220 per cent on a new model of passenger jet manufactured by Bombardier, one of Northern Ireland’s biggest employers, Downing Street said. 

The comment came after Ms May was accused of being “asleep at the wheel” as unions warned that thousands of jobs could be put at risk by the US move.

Canadian multinational Bombardier employs around 4,200 people in Belfast and thousands more jobs in Northern Ireland are supported through the manufacturer’s supply chain, according to trade unionists.

Ms May had lobbied US President Donald Trump over the dispute, which was sparked by complaints from rival Boeing that Bombardier received unfair state subsidies from the UK and Canada, allowing the sale of airliners at below cost price in America.

Bombardier vowed to fight the ruling which it described as “absurd”. The company is due to start delivery of up to 125 new jets to Delta Airlines next year as part of a $5.6bn (£4.2bn) deal signed in 2016.

Union leaders slammed the prime minister for failing to do more to lobby for British workers.

GMB national officer, Ross Murdoch described the decision as a “hammer blow to Belfast” and accused Ms May of being “asleep at the wheel when she could and should have been fighting to protect these workers”.

Jimmy Kelly, Unite regional secretary, said: “The decision taken by the US department of commerce was not unexpected – unfortunately it is unlikely to be overturned by president Trump whose protectionist tendencies are well-known.

“The threat of punitive tariffs on the C-Series will cast a shadow over Bombardier’s future unless the company can source alternative and substantial sales outside the US market.”

It is understood the Prime Minister raised the issue in a telephone call with US President Donald Trump earlier this month following presure from Democratic Unionist Party leader Arlene Foster, whose 10 MPs are propping up Ms May’s minority government.

Mrs Foster said: “This is a very disappointing determination, but it is not the end of the process and there are further steps that will follow.

“The C-Series is a hugely innovative aircraft that is vital to Bombardier’s operations in Belfast. It is this innovation that sets the C-Series apart and it is not in direct competition with Boeing.”

Bombardier’s deal to supply billions of pounds worth of jets is in jeopardy after the US Commerce Department ruled that Bombardier received an unfair subsidy in the form of £135m investment pledge by the UK Government and Northern Ireland’s power sharing administration. The firm also received $1bn from the Quebec government in 2015.

US authorities say this allowed Bombardier to supply aircraft at in implausibly low price of around £19m, making it impossible for Boeing to compete. Those aircraft will now cost around £61m once the interim tariff is applied.

US secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross said on Wednesday: “The US values its relationships with Canada, but even our closest allies must play by the rules.

“The subsidisation of goods by foreign governments is something that the Trump Administration takes very seriously, and we will continue to evaluate and verify the accuracy of this preliminary determination.”