Unhappy438
Honorary Master
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 24,915
I dunno. It's just my favourite graph of the day. Can't I post it some more. Seeing as Canada import most of their steel from China and India...and don't produce any of their own and all:crylaugh:
What do import numbers do to help your cause?
Thanks man. How far off was I in term of %?
Your numbers were still wrong. Your consumption numbers don't account for imports. You're just doing the thing you accused me of doing with regards to exports. Well, at least we now have proof that you really didn't have a clue why you were posting import stats a moment ago.Thanks man. How far off was I in term of %?
(14.2-12.7)/14.2 * 100 = 10.56388
Not bad, since I did it in my head earlier.
Oh sorry, I forgot to calculate how far off Xarog was in his consumption calculation:
(20-14.2)/14.2 * 100= 40.8% off the mark
.shame
It's hard to overstate how bad this week's news about Kushner really is. This article has a useful timeline:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...nce-to-a-key-claim-of-the-steele-dossier.html
Kushner is currently facing potentially massive ramifications for a disastrous $1.8 billion real estate deal he struck a decade ago. The slew of new stories suggest that he may have orchestrated a foreign policy crisis to pressure Qatar to bail him out. Months later, a firm linked to Qatar gave him a staggeringly large loan. All of these vents suggest how Russia might have delivered a possible quid—a potential payment from a huge oil sale through back channels—in return for a Trump administration quo—a reported promise of reduced sanctions.
So the Steele dossier gains credibility and the links to Russia become explicitly clear when you realise that Kushner has been on the hook for $1.8bil debt, which is due to mature next year. And this is the guy Trump has been sending in to broker international peace deals, all without proper security clearance? IMO this is a massive dereliction of duty on the part of the President.
80% of their exports are to the US.
They produce 10% less than they consume. They export half of what they produce.
The core argument is that they produce hardly anything. They actually only export half of their local production of raw steel. I.e. core argument built on BS
Edit: I would actually produce the actual figures, but that would involve attempting to explain them to you...which is impossible
QEDThanks man. How far off was I in term of %?
(14.2-12.7)/14.2 * 100 = 10.56388
Not bad, since I did it in my head earlier.
Oh sorry, I forgot to calculate how far off Xarog was in his consumption calculation:
(20-14.2)/14.2 * 100= 40.8% off the mark
.shame
Your numbers were still wrong. Your consumption numbers don't account for imports. You're just doing the thing you accused me of doing with regards to exports. Well, at least we now have proof that you really didn't have a clue why you were posting import stats a moment ago.
Now you're just being disingenuous. This is what you wrote:Original claim
Did I prove you wrong? Yes, yes I did. Does your formulation present an incomplete picture of production, consumption, imports and exports? Yes it does. Is there evidence of dumping on the Canadian market from China and South Korea? Yes there is. Is it reasonable to conclude that such dumping would serve to depress Canadian steel prices to the point where it threatens the viability of the American steel industry insofar as China and South Korea resort to anticompetitive subsidies? Yes it is. Would this ultimately validate the thesis behind the article which you are so pedantically and frantically trying to discredit? Why yes, yes it would.2016 production: 9.7
2016 Consumption: 10.8
Exports: 4.6
How does this:
prove it wrong in any way whatsoever?
Now you're just being disingenuous. This is what you wrote:
Did I prove you wrong? Yes, yes I did. Does your formulation present an incomplete picture of production, consumption, imports and exports? Yes it does. Is there evidence of dumping on the Canadian market from China and South Korea? Yes there is. Is it reasonable to conclude that such dumping would serve to depress Canadian steel prices to the point where it threatens the viability of the American steel industry insofar as China and South Korea resort to anticompetitive subsidies? Yes it is. Would this ultimately validate the thesis behind the article which you are so pedantically and frantically trying to discredit? Why yes, yes it would.
You still haven't accounted for imports in those numbers. Your claim about the consumption to production ratio is therefore inaccurate. And more to the point, the stat that you are invoking is apparent consumption, not actual consumption.My YTD figures:
2016 production: 9.7
2016 Consumption: 10.8
Exports: 4.6
Ratio:
Production: 2.10
Consumption: 2.34
Exports: 1
End of Year figures
Production: 12.7
Consumption: 14.2
Exports : 6.1
Ratio:
Production: 2.08
Consumption: 2.33
Export : 1
Will you actually understand this: unlikely
20m consumption, was it? Just remind me. As opposed to 14? Exports don't matter? Wendy ate 17 cupcakes, I tell ya!!! Lol
And how do you think that figure is calculated. It's simple frikkin arithmetic. This is primary school stuff. Yet you can't do it? That seems beyond you as well.You still haven't accounted for imports in those numbers. Your claim about the consumption to production ratio is therefore inaccurate. And more to the point, the stat that you are invoking is apparent consumption, not actual consumption.
That's actually cannot be determined from the stats provided thus far because if steel is imported, processed and then exported, the same steel would be considered imported, produced, consumed and exported all at once.And how do you think that figure is calculated. It's simple frikkin arithmetic. This is primary school stuff. Yet you can't do it? That seems beyond you as well.
Let me summon Wendy again.
Wendy, the accused glutton:
Made 12.7 cupcakes
Bought 7.7 cupcakes
Sold 6.1 cupcakes
And ate the rest.
How many cupcakes did Wendy eat?
Hint: it's not 20
I would say maybe 8-10 year old arithmetic right there. I will allow the use of a calculatorThat's actually cannot be determined from the stats provided thus far because if steel is imported, processed and then exported, the same steel would be considered imported, produced, consumed and exported all at once.
Ok, so tell me which imported steel goes into the produced category and which imported steel goes into the consumed category.I would say maybe 8-10 year old arithmetic right there. I will allow the use of a calculator
You can also call a friend. I'm sure 1st ply is available to helpOk, so tell me which imported steel goes into the produced category and which imported steel goes into the consumed category.
The import and export statistics clearly include processed objects that cannot reasonably be considered crude steel.You can also call a friend. I'm sure 1st ply is available to help
We are talking about crude steel. We have been all the time, what now...you want to change the equation?
Yes, you see where it says "main products" and has a breakdown of the various products? Well, it turns out that all the import/export stats are broken down in those same categories. And as you can see from the glossary, they can't all be crude steel items.Someone's making assumptions again?
How much did Wendy eat? I'm still waiting for the answer.
From your link:
View attachment 503861
Read the 1st sentence.Yes, you see where it says "main products" and has a breakdown of the various products? Well, it turns out that all the import/export stats are broken down in those same categories. And as you can see from the glossary, they can't all be crude steel items.
Read the 1st sentence.
I made a mistake. I think I said 8-10 year olds.
I should be third graders. I dunno what age that is exactly: https://www.understood.org/en/learn.../math-skills-what-to-expect-at-different-ages
Actually, I'm done with this stupidity. Clerly you can't add and subtract decimals. Thanks again Xarog. Has been awesome, once again
Look at Hamish chopping and changing his story to evade admitting his blunder. Hilarious.