Since we`re in the midst of a "tell your father, I said....." discussion, I`ll reply to my own post 🙂 Okay correlation isn`t causation, in other words the Sun doesn`t rise because the rooster crows. Or to be a little more blunt, just because someone is unhappy with the results of the 2016 election, that isn`t the cause of $3 corn and $8 beans. Sure, if we want to give away the store on trade in the greater economy, then yes other countries will buy more ag commodities ...$3 for $1 or $4 for $1.
Here is looking at the world, not staring at a single tree and wondering where the forest is. Look at these WORLD stocks to use charts and can Ferris Bueller tell me where we had $7 corn and where we have $3 corn?
Thanks Smokey...... great statistical presentation and a wonderful opportunity to compare our what we each see as it relates to agriculture and I'll try to do it concisely
1 This chart ....
You see an affect on agriculture --- I see the improvement in the economy of mexico created by nafta and the benefit to companies who expanded into mexico to invest outside US regulations and gain a cheap labor market. Cotton and other ag products gained new markets south of the border as US markets for our commodities left the US -- that change will not be affected by changes in documents. ---- Only the difference in the two columns mean anything to the US economy I see a trade deficit that got worse --- in 90-94 we profited from trade with nafta countries by 1.6 B..... in 2012-16 the us lost 1.8 Billion trading with nafta countries
2...
I see a chart that is 1. way to early to show the affects of trumps work, 2... shows the long range problem our trade practices have been and conveniently stops at 2000. I would like to see it from 1980 to view the effects of the original nafta agreement. 3. Correlate deficit spending with national debt.... the affect of Clintons work in the 90's was to improve world economies at the expense of ours and it appears to have been successful.
3....
Like an Sales projection from a farmer this Governmental (out of context) chart shows US Production in $$ terms.
If I were considering this farmer for a loan I want to see a debt chart for the same years, and an expence chart for the same years.
You can build some ego pumping presentations on borrowed money, but they don't tell the story of economic health. This one represents federal spending on borrowed money
4.....
I see the affect of changing the way we record unemployment and the ineffectiveness of the federal labor department. It's irritating because I have a son who deemed a "too expensive" writer by media and has not exercised that talent since layed off at the peak of that chart. But government in its self preservative best, changes the rules as to what defines unemployment so the charts don't look so bad...and we ignore the jobs we destroy or ship to china and mexico. And worst of all another political president uses the fake information as a prop
Who knows what the truth is here.......
5...
I see ....... Ever notice how the chart builders use inflation when they want to make farm expenses not look so bad and ignore inflation when they are trying to make nafta trade gains look good... I totally agree with the blue line farm expenses have skyrocketed ,,,, largely an affect of federal deficit spending and the inflation it gave us as we tried to make the economy look better with borrowed money.
6......
Farm sector debt over 40 years ----- I see the best chart of the bunch. and the most positive ------ sort of..
With the back drop of federal borrowing. farm debt is totally misrepresented and the details on it are spelled out in the footnotes.
another "inflation adjusted dollars" to make the chart look better. Real dollar debt therefore is a lot higher and might be touching the chart above it. With the fed holding interest down and even considering negitave interest rates at one point how much debt does it take to hold interest spending up for the last 10 years.
The one thing I see in this chart (considering its proximity to actual real dollars) is how difficult the 1980's had to be. Interest itself was probably driving debt up without new purchases.
Whe imputs are manipulated so much that footnotes don't do a decent job of explaining .........charts are just tools for presentations/artwork.
7......
Soybean sales......... I see..... an opinion piece but truely .... ag. got a pass on the 2008 wreck thanks to a drought (individuals did not get a pass), statistically as usda views it , to hell with the individuals who couldnt raise a crop, "farmers got rich and fat 2008-18."
Trump has been many odd things but not a normal politician telling you what you want to hear. He said, we gotta fix this deficit trade and deficit spending and both have to be done (somewhat paraphrased :)) If your told, we got a bad tooth and its gotta come out ... your gonna get some pain. Ag is an even bigger part of trade, thank's to our decisions in the 90's to outsource our manufacturing and build massive containerized recieving docks... the only part of the production economy not outsourced-- misleading statement , maybe a bit because--we are outsourcing much of our labor to raise the grain and will have to if we all go organic..
This chart I see..... the most politically suspicious chart in the group. whoever" unknown" is we aught to find out...... but we know.... most of the time.----joke is over. This tells you a lot about the hand picking of data for presentation --the footnote tells us something different than title does..... The chart represents less than 4 months of a marketing year, we won't know what this chart will look like until next fall. Interesting that unknowns bought 30% of the 2017 purchases as of mid december and nearly 50% of the 2018 crop. That is a lot of unknown to hide a political statement behind... Gets my worst use of statistics award today.
8.....
I agree ag has and is taking a big hit.....and I like this chart it shows with vague stats some truths of history and I would like to call the blue line break even potential. 🙂 It shows farmings ups and downs over time and shows how distorted and abnormal the last 10 years have been. I keep wanting to ask what effect public policies had on that and maybe none...but I say as much economic destruction in those years above the line than now below it ......so far... our Young left in droves and small farms took any way out. I know that is regionalized somewhat but the way we gather stats and apply $$ values to things, ignore inflation, the cost of technology and think we can fix things by writing bigger loans and calling them something else...distorts reality.... I feel like we flew off the handle in 2008 trying to prevent pain and haven't got enough of a working economy left for anybody but a robot to regain our grip. too much emotion there but I do like being ablle to point to this chart and say working with a budget is normal.... see. The last 10 years has been the abnormal
9..
This is not worth much but it is a fun presentation....
a. a teacher of some sort prepared it (brookings institute?) notice who is last
b. Who gets laid off first..... usually middle management ---- lower reds.
c. Costs of automation..... will dictate who accepts it and who doesn't Government had better reconsider what happened at the post office...... automation is far cheaper than employees on a public level... (FSA could be done through a website and a little outsourcing to the crop insurance lobby.
d. ag. got some $6 corn and 14 beans to make the innitial investment..... from here on it is going to be hard for ag to robotic itself from sheer cash flow
interesting stuff thanks Smokie
10 Real estate value ----- no comment .... somewhat regional and many regions haven't discovered they are not farming communities any more Things sold as farm land are investment bridges yet farmed. comment to some things i see in farm magazines --- Farmers still buy the land.... my comment they never set the price..... The next to last bidder sets the price. We need to pay attention to who he was.
11.
I am afraid the economic slide is just starting in terms of bankruptcies especially if we continue to see a government that embarrasses us. I know we may all be embarassed by different things but economic stability may stay on a downturn as long as half the country thinks it is good and another american is the enemy. It takes faith to get through tough times... in all sense of the word.
12 FB chart is very telling ... for agriculture....... we will regress to the size that supports economics.... government cannot be our crutch forever...not when you consider the federal budget going to all the gray states in that map.
13 & 14
There are far too many assumptions and unknowns to give either chart credibility..... 500 million to the ag economy is not a big number at all and if your spending 2 billion to get it those special interest groups don't care......
These two charts just drive me to condemn lobbyists organizations..... and their self serving role in pumping cash out of congress.
But I will keep them both so we can see how close to reality they were in a few years.
Thanks for this Smokey....
BA..
Dont forget one of those wonderful congressional accomplishments ( I wish i could do a good "will Rogers" on it)------ Daylight savings time. Congress thinks if it is the rooster it will have that power.
A good match of charts.......... The first showing how demand has rocketed up for corn ,,,,, and yet trying not to.
and the second showing ?????
Take a look at this matching chart and the picture becomes far more focused and the lie told by just showing one chart becomes more clear.
How high has world demand become ???
The world is walking a supply chain tight rope -- the world carry over is 20% of world usage. 73 days supply.
In real historic terms that is not a surplus.........usda needs to make it look so.
SW - You also, and let us know if #3 is spotted over your way, 1 , 2 , & 4 are becoming weary of the continual questioning - 
