Tag: news

As Opioid Prescriptions Surged in Germany, Opioid Addiction Held Steady, While Opioid-Related Deaths Fell

Contrary to the conventional narrative of the “opioid crisis,” it is clear from U.S. data that there is no straightforward relationship between narcotic analgesic prescription rates and deaths involving those drugs, or between the volume of analgesics prescribed and the incidence of misuse or addiction. A recent study sheds further light on this issue, finding that “the number of persons addicted to opioids in Germany has hardly changed over the past 20 years,” notwithstanding a sharp increase in opioid prescriptions that began in the 1990s.

Here is a chart showing the volume of opioids prescribed by German doctors, measured in morphine milligram equivalents per capita, from 1980 through 2014:

That comes from a 2017 article in the journal PAIN Reports. The newer study, published last March in Deutsches Arzteblatt International, estimates that in 2016 there were 166,294 “opioid-addicted persons in Germany.” The researchers add that “comparisons with earlier estimates” indicate the number was about the same two decades before then, prior to the dramatic increase in opioid prescriptions. In other words, a large increase in consumption of narcotic pain relievers did not lead to a surge in addiction, whether to those drugs or to illicit opioids such as heroin.

What’s more, OECD data compiled by J.J. Rich, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), show that deaths involving licit and illicit opioids did not rise in Germany either. In fact, both the number of deaths and the death rate declined during the same period when prescriptions were climbing.

“There are signs of an opioid epidemic in Australia and Canada, but not in Germany,” the authors of the 2017 PAIN Reports study concluded after looking at data from those three countries, all of which have seen big increases in opioid prescriptions during the last two decades. According to the OECD data, total opioid-related deaths fell in Australia from 2000 through 2006, then rose from 2007 through 2015, when the number was about the same as it was in 2000. In Canada, opioid-related deaths rose steadily from 2000 through 2012, then fell for the next three years. Yet in Germany, opioid-related deaths were declining or steady throughout that period.

What makes Germany special? Its regulations and guidelines, as described in the PAIN Reports study, seem pretty similar to those in Australia and Canada. One notable difference in prescribing guidelines is the dose at which “particular caution” is recommended, which was lowest in Australia and highest in Canada, with Germany in the middle. The study notes that “fentanyl patches are the most frequently prescribed strong opioids in Germany,” and such products may be less appealing to nonmedical users than pills that can be crushed and snorted or injected.

But it seems clear that other factors are at work, including social and cultural conditions that make addiction more likely or less likely. “The US leads the developed world in per capita opioid-related overdose deaths, while Germany’s overdose rate is among the lowest in the developed world,” notes Phoenix surgeon Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who brought both of these studies to my attention. “Germany’s overdose rate has been essentially unchanged for most of this century. Opioids were considered responsible for just under 800 overdose deaths in 2016, compared to more than 42,000 deaths in the US that year.”

The vast majority of those opioid-related deaths involved heroin or illicit fentanyl. The U.S. has a population four times as big as Germany’s and an opioid problem more than 50 times as big.

There are also significant drug policy differences between the two countries. “Unlike the US, Germany has embraced harm reduction strategies for the treatment of substance use disorder and non-medical drug use for decades,” Singer writes. “These strategies include safe injection facilities, needle exchange programs, medication assisted treatment and heroin assisted treatment, and distribution of test strips and naloxone.”

Even if the U.S. copied German harm reduction policies, drug use would still look different in the two countries, because it is influenced by many variables beyond the substances themselves or the policies aimed at controlling them. But those policies can make drug use more dangerous or less dangerous, depending on the priorities of the people who formulate and execute them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kka2cv
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Take a Bite Out of Crime

A Marion County, Indiana, sheriff’s deputy went to a  TV station to accuse workers at a local McDonald’s of taking a bite of his chicken sandwich because he is a cop. But the sheriff’s office now says he was mistaken. “I went to the McDonald’s and talked to the supervisor,” the deputy, who wasn’t identified by name, told the station. “She offered me some free food I didn’t care anything about. I just wanted to find out who the person was and they deal with that person in an appropriate way.” But after an investigation, the sheriff’s office released a statement saying the deputy took a bite out of the sandwich before starting his shift then placed it in a break room refrigerator. When he came back hours later to heat his meal and eat it, he’d forgotten he’d taken the bite.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kk9T8X
via IFTTT

As Opioid Prescriptions Surged in Germany, Opioid Addiction Held Steady, While Opioid-Related Deaths Fell

Contrary to the conventional narrative of the “opioid crisis,” it is clear from U.S. data that there is no straightforward relationship between narcotic analgesic prescription rates and deaths involving those drugs, or between the volume of analgesics prescribed and the incidence of misuse or addiction. A recent study sheds further light on this issue, finding that “the number of persons addicted to opioids in Germany has hardly changed over the past 20 years,” notwithstanding a sharp increase in opioid prescriptions that began in the 1990s.

Here is a chart showing the volume of opioids prescribed by German doctors, measured in morphine milligram equivalents per capita, from 1980 through 2014:

That comes from a 2017 article in the journal PAIN Reports. The newer study, published last March in Deutsches Arzteblatt International, estimates that in 2016 there were 166,294 “opioid-addicted persons in Germany.” The researchers add that “comparisons with earlier estimates” indicate the number was about the same two decades before then, prior to the dramatic increase in opioid prescriptions. In other words, a large increase in consumption of narcotic pain relievers did not lead to a surge in addiction, whether to those drugs or to illicit opioids such as heroin.

What’s more, OECD data compiled by J.J. Rich, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), show that deaths involving licit and illicit opioids did not rise in Germany either. In fact, both the number of deaths and the death rate declined during the same period when prescriptions were climbing.

“There are signs of an opioid epidemic in Australia and Canada, but not in Germany,” the authors of the 2017 PAIN Reports study concluded after looking at data from those three countries, all of which have seen big increases in opioid prescriptions during the last two decades. According to the OECD data, total opioid-related deaths fell in Australia from 2000 through 2006, then rose from 2007 through 2015, when the number was about the same as it was in 2000. In Canada, opioid-related deaths rose steadily from 2000 through 2012, then fell for the next three years. Yet in Germany, opioid-related deaths were declining or steady throughout that period.

What makes Germany special? Its regulations and guidelines, as described in the PAIN Reports study, seem pretty similar to those in Australia and Canada. One notable difference in prescribing guidelines is the dose at which “particular caution” is recommended, which was lowest in Australia and highest in Canada, with Germany in the middle. The study notes that “fentanyl patches are the most frequently prescribed strong opioids in Germany,” and such products may be less appealing to nonmedical users than pills that can be crushed and snorted or injected.

But it seems clear that other factors are at work, including social and cultural conditions that make addiction more likely or less likely. “The US leads the developed world in per capita opioid-related overdose deaths, while Germany’s overdose rate is among the lowest in the developed world,” notes Phoenix surgeon Jeffrey Singer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who brought both of these studies to my attention. “Germany’s overdose rate has been essentially unchanged for most of this century. Opioids were considered responsible for just under 800 overdose deaths in 2016, compared to more than 42,000 deaths in the US that year.”

The vast majority of those opioid-related deaths involved heroin or illicit fentanyl. The U.S. has a population four times as big as Germany’s and an opioid problem more than 50 times as big.

There are also significant drug policy differences between the two countries. “Unlike the US, Germany has embraced harm reduction strategies for the treatment of substance use disorder and non-medical drug use for decades,” Singer writes. “These strategies include safe injection facilities, needle exchange programs, medication assisted treatment and heroin assisted treatment, and distribution of test strips and naloxone.”

Even if the U.S. copied German harm reduction policies, drug use would still look different in the two countries, because it is influenced by many variables beyond the substances themselves or the policies aimed at controlling them. But those policies can make drug use more dangerous or less dangerous, depending on the priorities of the people who formulate and execute them.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kka2cv
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Take a Bite Out of Crime

A Marion County, Indiana, sheriff’s deputy went to a  TV station to accuse workers at a local McDonald’s of taking a bite of his chicken sandwich because he is a cop. But the sheriff’s office now says he was mistaken. “I went to the McDonald’s and talked to the supervisor,” the deputy, who wasn’t identified by name, told the station. “She offered me some free food I didn’t care anything about. I just wanted to find out who the person was and they deal with that person in an appropriate way.” But after an investigation, the sheriff’s office released a statement saying the deputy took a bite out of the sandwich before starting his shift then placed it in a break room refrigerator. When he came back hours later to heat his meal and eat it, he’d forgotten he’d taken the bite.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Kk9T8X
via IFTTT

Trader Warns: No Matter Where We End Today, It Will Look Ugly

Authored by Richard Breslow via Bloomberg,

There has been a lot of talk recently about intervention. And we certainly need one. Looking at the charts this morning, one word comes to mind — failure. True, traders are still trying to sort their positions out from earlier in the week, so it’s problematic to come to too many this-will-lead-to-that conclusions. But even with the dollar starting the day looking like it suffered another failed breakout, a lot of assets that should welcome this development, like emerging markets, have taken no comfort. This might be a short-term phenomenon, but it merits very close monitoring.

It’s only human nature to watch what’s going on in the news and the latest price action and be perturbed. So much of the analysis centers around speculating on the game theory aspects of events and the shifting odds of rate cuts. Fear and greed never die. And that isn’t at all untoward. That’s people doing their jobs. And in difficult circumstances.

Indeed, they would be remiss not to take note that the odds for a September rate cut have changed rather decisively. And the fact that, at the moment, they don’t appear at all subject to change.

One has to ask, however, what possible good can another cut do? It’s easy, looking at them as coming from the reaction function of enablers, to understand their potential harm. Earlier this week, consumer confidence blew away all estimates. Now speculate on whether anyone is going to run out and remodel their kitchens from an extra 25 basis points. They are far more likely to think: “here we go again.”

And if businesses supposedly like large doses of certainty before making capital investments, where would they find it in hearing the message of global headwinds, geopolitical tensions and supply chain disruptions? They already borrow at effectively no cost.

But, make no mistake, if there is any doubt that further rate cuts are coming, that notion can be dispelled. And it won’t change because some next piece of news sends stocks back to Thursday’s happier levels. No one can even hazard an educated guess whether that will happen or not. Far more pertinently, and worrying, it will take a while before economic numbers will have the ability to change the calculus. In the short term, they will only matter if they affect the level of the dollar such that it affects other markets.

Having said that, it in no way means that the Fed’s choice of eschewing a shock-and-awe move this week was wrong. It just means things would have fallen from higher levels. And not earned them any extra kudos from the constituencies that really matter.

Both the Dollar and Bloomberg Dollar indexes are at important crossroads. They are both very much in play. With some very smart people having diametrically opposed views of where they are headed. DXY looked like it was making a decisive move higher, but has fallen back to no man’s land. Sitting on an important pivot level means how it ends the week will provoke a lot of position adjusting. Good for business, if nothing else.

BBDXY is the more interesting of the two. It topped out on Thursday, right in a zone that has been significant multiple times over the course of the last year. It never properly broke out. Where this one goes will be where the global version of Main Street will be most riveted.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MAnonS Tyler Durden

10 year old charged for assault… with a dodgeball

Welcome to our Friday roll up, where we highlight the most absurd and concerning stories we are following this week.

10 year old charged for assault… with a dodgeball

A ten year old boy will be brought to juvenile court on assault charges.

His heinous crime was hitting another 10 year old in the face with a dodgeball at recess.

He originally got suspended from school for one day… which seems like a more reasonable punishment.

But the tattle-tale mother of the injured child felt the need to get the authorities involved over a month after the incident.

So now before the next school year starts, the 10 year old deviant will be hauled in front of a juvenile court to answer for his playground crime.

We all know that you aren’t supposed to aim for the head in dodgeball… and we all probably did it anyway as kids.

That’s something you should explain to the principal, not a judge.

Click here for the full story.

10 days in jail for 79 year old who fed stray cats

A kind-hearted 79 year old woman started feeding her neighbor’s cats after he moved away and abandoned them.

Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. Her other neighbor’s ratted her out for violating a city ordinance against feeding stray cats and dogs.

But what is she supposed to do, just watch as these living breathing animals she cares for starve?

Unlike her neighbors, she had the compassion to keep caring for the cats despite three citations from the city.

Finally she was hauled in front of a judge who saw it fit to sentence this old woman to ten days in county jail. For feeding cats.

I don’t know who is worse, the neighbors or the judge?

Click her for the full story.

SWAT team raids a guy’s home over Facebook parody of police

One creative gentleman created a Facebook page that looked almost exactly like his local police department’s page.

But the differences became apparent when you looked closer. For instance, in the jobs section, it said “minorities need not apply.”

It also included posts about the department giving honorary police commissions to pedophiles.

It was a parody page, and clearly this man had an interesting sense of humor…

But as offensive as these posts may be to police, and others, it’s not a crime.

That didn’t stop the police from sending in the SWAT team. They raided the man’s home, arrested him, and charged him with impairing police services.

He spent a few days in jail before posting bail. And when the case went to trial, he was acquitted by the jury.

Since his arrest was an obvious violation of free speech, the man sued.

Usually this is the part where cops get qualified immunity, meaning they can’t be sued because it wasn’t clear to them that they were violating someone’s rights.

But in a rare moment of clarity, a judge decided that this one was pretty obvious: police should have known they were violating this man’s well established rights.

The First Amendment suit will move forward.

Click here for the full story.

Source

from Sovereign Man https://ift.tt/2KnAXEc
via IFTTT

There’s No Such Thing as ‘Free Money’ or Meaningless Deficits

Most people probably have seen those TV advertisements featuring an obnoxious pitchman wearing a brightly colored suit covered in question marks. He jumps around frenetically, waving his hands, and announcing that the government is giving away lots of “free money.” Matthew Lesko’s websites help people tap into a sea of federal grants and loans. You can even talk to a “free money coach” to show you how to do it.

That’s probably a good business opportunity in a country where the government spends $4.7 trillion a year. That’s trillion with a dozen zeroes. It’s 1,000 times a billion, which is starting to approach real money. It could take thousands of years to simply count to 1 trillion. The Lesko approach—free cash for everyone—has long been the strategy of Democratic politicians, but now it’s the official fiscal policy of Republican politicians, too.

I sensed trouble when conservative radio pitchman Rush Limbaugh recently told a caller, “Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around.” I couldn’t disagree if his point were that no political leader really has ever been serious about it. But Rush has also pooh-poohed years of deficit scares. “(W)e’re still here, and the great jaws of the deficit have not bitten off our heads.”

Apparently, Rush was softening up the conservative base for what would come next. Shortly after his comments, President Donald Trump agreed to a two-year budget deal with Democratic lawmakers that increases spending by $320 billion and obliterates existing discretionary spending caps. One budget watchdog explains that the deal will increase debt levels by $1.7 trillion over the next decade. “Trillion-dollar deficits are back, and they’re here to stay,” lamented the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The president once promised to reduce the nation’s $18 trillion national debt, but instead is helping push it beyond $22 trillion. Everyone’s a hypocrite now. Limbaugh and most conservatives had decried the soaring debt when Democratic President Barack Obama was in office, but now it doesn’t seem to matter. Many liberal commentators are blasting Republican Trump’s profligacy, but were unconcerned about such spending when their guy was in office.

Some Republican senators and members of the House Freedom Caucus blasted the deal. But there’s little doubt the budget package will pass. Both parties like to spend money. Republicans are happy that the agreement boosts military spending and they are uninterested in cutting entitlement dollars. The entire Democratic agenda is about spending more money, so they’re not about to complain about a record-setting budget.

With both sides so invested in government spending, it’s not surprising to hear the revival of those old arguments that deficits don’t matter. On the Left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and others are championing economist Stephanie Kelton, who argues that lawmakers should “avoid fruitless battles over the debt ceiling” and should “acknowledge that the deficit itself could be deployed as a potent weapon in the fights against inequality, poverty and economic stagnation.”

On the Right, former Vice President Dick Cheney famously said that “deficits don’t matter.” Such conservatives weren’t interested in using federal spending to fight poverty and inequality, but they didn’t want growing deficits to curtail their military efforts in Iraq or quash their desire to step up tax cuts. His ideological heirs now argue that deficits are fine as long as interest rates are low and the Gross Domestic Product keeps growing.

Sorry, but deficits and debt do matter. There’s no short-term crisis, for sure, but debt “will depress economic growth over time and could potentially lead to a fiscal crisis if borrowers lose faith in the country’s ability to pay,” explained Yuval Rosenberg in The Fiscal Times. Furthermore, he notes, debt hampers government’s ability to react to real emergencies “such as recessions, wars or natural disasters.” As debt soars, federal payments to service the debt will crowd out the government’s core spending responsibilities.

It’s morally reprehensible for current lawmakers who, to quote Limbaugh back when he was concerned about such things, are spending so recklessly “that it is destroying the future of your kids and grandkids.” That’s the key point. You could borrow an immense amount of money to upgrade the kitchen and take Hawaiian vacations and then claim that it doesn’t matter as long as you can cover the monthly interest payment. But that’s a road to eventual ruin.

Some debts can’t be helped—e.g., capital expenses—but look at the nonsense that our massive federal budget is funding. Easy debt drives easy spending. It enables our government to do things it shouldn’t do, such as wage unnecessary wars and create boondoggles like the Green New Deal or a space force. Deficit spending creates constant pressure for tax hikes.

We shouldn’t spend what we don’t have. Despite those TV ads, there is no such thing as “freeeee money.”

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YCT2XX
via IFTTT

There’s No Such Thing as ‘Free Money’ or Meaningless Deficits

Most people probably have seen those TV advertisements featuring an obnoxious pitchman wearing a brightly colored suit covered in question marks. He jumps around frenetically, waving his hands, and announcing that the government is giving away lots of “free money.” Matthew Lesko’s websites help people tap into a sea of federal grants and loans. You can even talk to a “free money coach” to show you how to do it.

That’s probably a good business opportunity in a country where the government spends $4.7 trillion a year. That’s trillion with a dozen zeroes. It’s 1,000 times a billion, which is starting to approach real money. It could take thousands of years to simply count to 1 trillion. The Lesko approach—free cash for everyone—has long been the strategy of Democratic politicians, but now it’s the official fiscal policy of Republican politicians, too.

I sensed trouble when conservative radio pitchman Rush Limbaugh recently told a caller, “Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around.” I couldn’t disagree if his point were that no political leader really has ever been serious about it. But Rush has also pooh-poohed years of deficit scares. “(W)e’re still here, and the great jaws of the deficit have not bitten off our heads.”

Apparently, Rush was softening up the conservative base for what would come next. Shortly after his comments, President Donald Trump agreed to a two-year budget deal with Democratic lawmakers that increases spending by $320 billion and obliterates existing discretionary spending caps. One budget watchdog explains that the deal will increase debt levels by $1.7 trillion over the next decade. “Trillion-dollar deficits are back, and they’re here to stay,” lamented the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The president once promised to reduce the nation’s $18 trillion national debt, but instead is helping push it beyond $22 trillion. Everyone’s a hypocrite now. Limbaugh and most conservatives had decried the soaring debt when Democratic President Barack Obama was in office, but now it doesn’t seem to matter. Many liberal commentators are blasting Republican Trump’s profligacy, but were unconcerned about such spending when their guy was in office.

Some Republican senators and members of the House Freedom Caucus blasted the deal. But there’s little doubt the budget package will pass. Both parties like to spend money. Republicans are happy that the agreement boosts military spending and they are uninterested in cutting entitlement dollars. The entire Democratic agenda is about spending more money, so they’re not about to complain about a record-setting budget.

With both sides so invested in government spending, it’s not surprising to hear the revival of those old arguments that deficits don’t matter. On the Left, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and others are championing economist Stephanie Kelton, who argues that lawmakers should “avoid fruitless battles over the debt ceiling” and should “acknowledge that the deficit itself could be deployed as a potent weapon in the fights against inequality, poverty and economic stagnation.”

On the Right, former Vice President Dick Cheney famously said that “deficits don’t matter.” Such conservatives weren’t interested in using federal spending to fight poverty and inequality, but they didn’t want growing deficits to curtail their military efforts in Iraq or quash their desire to step up tax cuts. His ideological heirs now argue that deficits are fine as long as interest rates are low and the Gross Domestic Product keeps growing.

Sorry, but deficits and debt do matter. There’s no short-term crisis, for sure, but debt “will depress economic growth over time and could potentially lead to a fiscal crisis if borrowers lose faith in the country’s ability to pay,” explained Yuval Rosenberg in The Fiscal Times. Furthermore, he notes, debt hampers government’s ability to react to real emergencies “such as recessions, wars or natural disasters.” As debt soars, federal payments to service the debt will crowd out the government’s core spending responsibilities.

It’s morally reprehensible for current lawmakers who, to quote Limbaugh back when he was concerned about such things, are spending so recklessly “that it is destroying the future of your kids and grandkids.” That’s the key point. You could borrow an immense amount of money to upgrade the kitchen and take Hawaiian vacations and then claim that it doesn’t matter as long as you can cover the monthly interest payment. But that’s a road to eventual ruin.

Some debts can’t be helped—e.g., capital expenses—but look at the nonsense that our massive federal budget is funding. Easy debt drives easy spending. It enables our government to do things it shouldn’t do, such as wage unnecessary wars and create boondoggles like the Green New Deal or a space force. Deficit spending creates constant pressure for tax hikes.

We shouldn’t spend what we don’t have. Despite those TV ads, there is no such thing as “freeeee money.”

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2YCT2XX
via IFTTT

Entire German Curve Drops Below Zero For First Time Ever

Somewhere, Albert Edwards is dancing a jig as the ice age he predicted will grip the world, appears to finally be here.

While global equities are sharply lower today following the end of the US-China trade ceasefire, it’s nothing compared to what is going on in the bond market, where one day after the 10Y US Treasury plunged a whopping 6% to 1.832% – the biggest one day drop since Brexit – to the lowest since the Trump election…

… the real show is in Germany, where not only did German 10Y Bunds tumble to the lowest on record, sliding to -0.503%, far below the ECB’s -0.40% deposit rate, the highlight was the plunge in 30Y yield, which today dropped below 0%…

… dragging the entire German yield curve in negative territory for the first time ever.

As such, Germany joined Denmark and Switzerland in offering negative returns across all maturities, and assuring losses to all investors should notes be held to maturity, taking the total stock of investment-grade debt yielding less than 0% above $14 trillion globally.

Enter “Japanification”: as Bloomberg notes, “the move will add to fears that the region’s economic slowdown is being driven by more structural factors akin to Japan’s lost decade”, which is ironic because not even Japan’s 30Ys trade negative. Germany’s bond market is widely perceived as being one of the world’s safest, with investors lured in by the liquidity and credit quality offered. Funds still looking to extract a positive return from European sovereign assets have been forced further out the yield curve or into riskier debt markets such as Italy. And as of today, anyone investing in German paper is guaranteed to lose money if holding to maturity.

“It underlines that the hunt for yield, or rather hunt to avoid negative yields, is accelerating day by day,” said Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, head of fixed-income research at Danske Bank A/S. “It just makes things more complicated.”

In addition to fears about a German recession sparked by the renewed Trump tariff threat, Germany’s bond market is also plagued by a problem of scarcity, with the government mandated by law to effectively maintain a budget surplus. The ECB holds nearly a third of the existing debt, leaving less to trade, which has helped to compress yields even further.

“It is a combination of a very uncertain economic outlook, a central bank that left all doors open in terms of new easing measures, the absence of inflation and vigorous search for yield,” said Nordea Bank chief strategist Jan von Gerich. “It was almost bound to happen.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ZnoS8m Tyler Durden

Here Is What Trump’s Mysterious “European Trade Announcement” Will Be About

Global markets are reeling Friday morning after President Trump announced his plan to slap 10% tariffs on the remaining ~$300 billion in Chinese imports, sparking fears that the world’s two largest economies would hunker down for a prolonged and destabilizing trade war. But adding to the market’s anxieties, journalists noticed an entry on President Trump’s itinerary ominously titled “announcement on European trade” slated for 1:45 pm ET.

Of course, it’s difficult to imagine that a president as obsessed with the stock market as Trump would delivery such a brutal one-two punch to investor confidence by, say, slapping tariffs on European autos. But without any clarification, the worst fears of analysts were left to fester.

But in a report that nearly slipped under the radar, Bloomberg has apparently learned the purpose of Friday afternoon’s trade announcement. And it’s far less exciting than many had feared.

President Trump and Trade Rep. Robert Lighthizer will announce a deal that will open the EU to more beef exports, something that will undoubtedly thrill the American beef industry which, like most of the American farming community, has firmly supported the president.

Here’s more from BBG:

U.S. President Donald Trump will formally announce a deal to open up the European Union to more beef exports after the bloc carved out quotas from other nations earlier this year, people familiar with the plans said.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and the European ambassador to the United States on Friday will sign an agreement to increase the amount of American beef that can be sold in the EU market, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement Friday.

Trump ’s daily itinerary for Friday includes “an announcement on EU Trade,” though the White House did not specify what the event was about. A White House spokesman and the USTR did not immediately respond to requests for comment late Thursday.

The deal, which has been in the works for months, follows the EU’s success in persuading Australia, Argentina and Uruguay to give up some of the market (with Trump’s tariff threats hanging over their heads, handing Trump a victory on trade was probably in Europe’s best interest).

Lighthizer called for a formal deal-signing ceremony to show that the administration is making progress on its trade agenda.

American farmers will be entitled to almost 80% – or 35,000 metric tons – of the annual EU quota on hormone-free beef over seven years, with an initial allocation of around 40%, European officials told reporters in June. The Trump administration in June secured more access to the European Union’s beef market after the bloc persuaded Australia, Argentina and Uruguay to cede chunks of the import quota.

According to people familiar with the announcement, Lighthizer called for the formal signing ceremony in an attempt to show progress on the bilateral trade agenda.

The deal is a huge win for American beef farmers, who lost out when the EU banned the import of meat from cattle exposed to growth hormones. The quotas were set to settle a transatlantic dispute over the ban, but gradually, US producers lost out to their rivals in Australia and South America.

The quota was set a decade ago to settle a transatlantic dispute over an EU ban on meat from cattle that were given growth hormones.

WTO rules required the volumes be made available to other nations that export beef, and Australia, Argentina and Uruguay gradually replaced the U.S. as the largest suppliers.

The timing of the announcement, which comes not only amid a flare-up in US-China relations but also not long after Trump threatened to tariff French wine in retaliation for taxes on American tech companies, is impossible to ignore, though it could bode well for the future bilateral trade relationship between the US and the bloc.

The announcement comes as Trump feuds with Europe over some trade issues, particularly with France. Trump has threatened to tariff French wine after that country imposed a tax on tech companies that will particularly impact American firms.

The US and EU are working on a limited trade agreement that would cut industrial tariffs but have reached an impasse over whether to include agriculture in the negotiations.

US President Donald Trump will formally announce a deal to open up the European Union to more beef exports after the bloc carved out quotas from other nations earlier this year, people familiar with the plans said.

Then again, there’s always the chance that Trump could use the opportunity to chide the EU about its abusive trade practices, or even introduce some new tariffs.

Because wiith Trump, nothing is ever set in stone, until it’s done.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2KkVR6X Tyler Durden