The Week Ahead: Oct. 27, 2024
— The Wall Street Journal reports (link) that many American farmers are planning to support Donald Trump in the upcoming election, despite concerns about potential trade wars that could harm their businesses. The article highlights the complex factors influencing rural voters’ decisions in key swing states like Wisconsin. What some farmers say. Justin Matott, a corn and soybean farmer in northwestern Wisconsin, exemplifies this sentiment. He acknowledges the potential negative impact of Trump’s trade policies on his farm but prioritizes other issues. Matott states, “I will do the best I can with what I’m given, and that’s on me. And I want to vote for what I think is going to be best for my country…The trade policies are kind of far down the list for me.” The article recalls the previous trade war initiated by Trump in 2018, which resulted in a $27 billion loss in U.S. agricultural exports. Despite this, many rural voters continue to support Trump, often citing concerns about border security and illegal immigration. The Trump administration provided that $27 billion to impacted farmers in direct payments. The potential for new trade tensions comes at a challenging time for American farmers. Crop prices have been declining, while costs for fertilizer, labor, and seeds have increased or stayed firm. Additionally, Congress has yet to renew the farm bill, a crucial piece of legislation that provides financial support to farmers. The other side. Charles Wachsmuth, a Harris supporter who runs a family-owned kidney-bean processor in Wisconsin, expresses concern about the prospect of new tariffs. He recalls the impact of the previous trade war, saying, “Trump’s promises to deploy tariffs once again keeps me up at night.” While some farmers are wary of potential trade conflicts, others view them as necessary. Ken Rosenow, a grain farmer who plans to vote for Trump, told the WSJ that he believes confronting China about trade imbalances was the right move. He states, “Sometimes you’ve got to draw a line in the sand to get people’s attention.” The article also notes that some farmers are looking beyond trade issues. Dwight Mogler, an Iowa hog farmer, supports Trump because he believes the former president would be “more supportive to farming overall and less likely to overregulate,” he told the WSJ. Bottom line: The Wall Street Journal’s report underscores the complexity of rural voter sentiment, with many farmers weighing trade concerns against other political priorities as they decide how to cast their ballots in the upcoming election. We explore some of the points in an item below based on our panel of policy watchers. — GOP ads in multiple states are urging Trump supporters not to split their tickets for Democratic Senate candidates. This is especially so in Ohio and Pennsylvania where Republicans want to defeat incumbent candidates Sherrard Brown in Ohio, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and Jon Tester in Montana (see next item). — Montana Senate race heats up as Native American vote takes center stage. The battle for Montana’s U.S. Senate seat has intensified, with both parties recognizing the crucial role of Native American voters in this tightly contested race. As the election approaches, the importance of every vote in this sparsely populated state has become increasingly apparent, according to a Washington Post item (link) on this key election race. Native Americans, the largest minority group in Montana, have emerged as a significant voting bloc. Ronnie Jo Horse, executive director of Western Native Voices, emphasized the potential impact of this demographic: “I think they are getting to know their power. We have 37,000 unregistered voters. We’re trying hard every day to get people to the polls and register to vote.” The Montana Democratic Party has launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to secure Native American support, recognizing their historical importance in Senator Jon Tester’s (D-Mont.) previous victories. However, recent elections have seen a downturn in Native turnout, prompting increased efforts from organizations like Western Native Voices to boost participation. The intensity of the race is reflected in the unprecedented levels of ad spending. Cam Maxwell, owner of 13 radio stations in Montana, noted, “This is historical. In my whole career, especially in Montana, usually we don’t get this wave of spending.” The total ad spending for this race is expected to reach $275 million, translating to nearly $350 spent per registered voter. Voter fatigue and the quest for every vote. As the campaign reaches its final stages, some Montanans have expressed weariness with the relentless political messaging. Machaela Goggins, a local voter, described the constant barrage of ads as feeling like “borderline psychological abuse.” Despite voter fatigue, the race remains fiercely competitive. With Montana’s history of ticket-splitting and the potential for high voter turnout, both parties are leaving no stone unturned in their quest for victory. As Ginger Aldrich, Yellowstone County’s election administrator, noted, “We saw about 5,000 voter updates or new registrations. This time we’re over 13,000.” Bottom line: The outcome of this Senate race between Tester and first time Republican candidate Tim Sheehy could have far-reaching implications, potentially determining control of the U.S. Senate and shaping the next president’s ability to advance their agenda through Congress. Most election watchers signal a Sheehy victory. Democrats hope Tester can pull out another win, just like he did on three other occasions. — GOP VP candidate JD Vance on the warnings from John Kelly and others that Trump is a fascist, on CNN’s State of the Union: “It’s about policy. It’s not about personality. … The people who have attacked Donald Trump the most vociferously on foreign policy will say, ‘Well, he’s a dictator,’ when what they really mean is … Trump wouldn’t listen to the leadership of the military when they wanted him to start ridiculous conflicts. That is a consistent theme.” — In response to the escalating tension between Israel and Iran following Israel’s latest airstrikes, the Biden administration has maintained a stance urging de-escalation. President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are focused on preventing the conflict from spiraling into a broader war, emphasizing that Israel’s military actions should remain limited and proportional to avoid regional destabilization. The White House has indicated that it advised Israel to avoid striking Iranian nuclear facilities, signaling a strategic effort to manage escalation while supporting Israel’s right to defend itself. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has taken a more aggressive tone, reportedly telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” in response to the recent attacks. This message aligns with Trump’s historically supportive stance towards Israel’s assertive military actions, contrasting with the Biden-Harris approach, which is centered on diplomacy and avoiding wider conflict. The differences between the two U.S. leaders’ positions highlight the political complexities surrounding the region, especially with the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Biden and Harris are balancing their response carefully to manage both the situation in the Middle East and domestic political concerns, given the potential impact on U.S. policy and voter sentiment as the Nov. 5 election approaches. JD Vance on the Iran-Israel attacks, on CBS’ Face the Nation: “The reason that Iran has all of these weapons to fire at Israel is because they have a lot of money. And where do they get that money from? From the easing of oil sanctions and from the release of a lot of money that the Biden-Harris administration had effectively locked up. They released it, and the promise of releasing it is that somehow it would make the Iranians a better partner, would maybe get them a little bit more on the trajectory to being a reasonable country. That’s not happening.” Of note: Both Israel and Iran have telegraphed strikes. The strikes have primarily targeted military sites and have not expanded to oil or nuclear sites. Markets haven’t reacted strongly to escalating violence in the Middle East. The price of oil, however, has surged at times on headlines. — North Dakota voters are facing a significant decision this fall regarding property taxes and state funding. A constitutional initiative on North Dakota’s November 2024 ballot proposes to eliminate property taxes based on assessed value, the Associated Press (link) and others report. If passed, this measure would: The potential financial impact of this measure is substantial: Supporters argue: Opponents contend: If the measure passes, several areas could be affected: Of note: A similar measure was on the ballot in 2012 but was defeated, with 76.54% of voters opposing it. However, some expect this year’s vote to be closer due to increased frustration and political changes in North Dakota since then. North Dakota has recently implemented tax reforms: • In 2023, the legislature passed a package of income tax cuts and property tax credits estimated at $515 million. — Japan’s ruling coalition loses majority amid scandal, PM Ishiba seeks alliances. For the first time since 2009, Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its coalition partner Komeito lost their majority in the lower house of parliament following Sunday’s election. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba acknowledged the setback and hinted at forming alliances with other parties to maintain governance. However, opposition parties such as the Democratic Party for the People and Japan Innovation Party have expressed no interest in joining an LDP-led coalition. This shift follows public discontent over a political funding scandal involving LDP lawmakers, forcing Ishiba to dissolve the chamber soon after taking office on Oct. 1. Meanwhile, the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) is expected to increase its seat count, reflecting voter frustration with the ruling bloc. |
| WASHINGTON FOCUS |
Election-year politics is clearly the focus now with Nov. 5 elections deciding the fate of the White House, House and Senate, with polls suggesting a very tight race for the presidency and the House, with most signaling a GOP takeover of the Senate.
— Senate Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) holds the key as to whether a farm bill can be completed this calendar year, according to Washington-based sources. The unknown is whether Stabenow can work out a deal with the other farm bill players, Senate Ag ranking member John Boozman, House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) and House Ag ranking member David Scott (D-Ga.). Some say that could be at least possible after elections. Some other items the contacts mentioned:
• A win-win for Democrats and Republicans is a must for farm bill completion.
• Democrats must be content on funding and policy issues relative to food and nutrition and conservation.
• Republicans must be satisfied relative to getting most if not all of the increase in reference prices contained in the House Ag Committee-passed measure.
• Some say Stabenow would like another farm bill completion for her legacy items as she is not running for re-election. Others say she already has billions of dollars in additional conservation funding via the Inflation Reduction Ac (IRA/Climate Act) and adequate food and nutrition funding without a new farm bill, especially relative to the Thrifty Food Plan.
• Results of the Nov. 5 elections, whenever they come, will likely help determine the odds of a farm bill yet this year.
• Some veteran Washington contacts still give the odds of a farm bill this year at only 15%. This group thinks a new farm bill will be part of an already busy agenda for a new Congress and new White House in 2025. This is the reason why some optimists think once the anchor of the elections is out of the way, the four major farm bill players can at least talk with perhaps more flexibility and perhaps more funding than the current farm bill baseline. That will depend in part on whether House Budget Chair Jody Arrington (R-Tex.) is able to get more funding beyond what is now signaled by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
• Contacts continue to signal high odds for ag disaster and ag price mitigation measures to be part of a “minibus” spending package that includes Agriculture appropriations for fiscal year (FY) 2025. House Speak Mike Johnson (R-La.) does not support a year-end omnibus spending bill, and will likely again push his layered approach to spending measures like last fiscal year.
— Who is better for U.S. ag sector: Harris or Trump? On Friday’s AgriTalk program (link), a farmer and listener posed that heartfelt query. Here is how he presented his dilemma:
“I’ve picked up on the strong support for candidate Trump the past several weeks from producers on the (AgriTalk) Farmer Forum. I’m amazed how many farmers don’t hesitate to support Trump. I’m fearful of his history and lack of support for agriculture. “Domestic: How many small refinery expectations did he grant? What does that mean for future ethanol use/growth? How many ‘climate programs’ would Trump preserve and what does that mean for the soy oil demand? “Global/Tariffs: Trump will put more tariffs on China which will impact our grain exports (negative for farm revenue). He will put a 200% tariff on John Deere parts coming from Mexico (increase farm expenses). The China tariffs on other goods: crop chemicals? Drones for ag? (increase in farm expenses). Until that production moves to the USA, this could create a lot of pain in farm country. “RFK Jr.: Trump made the comment that he would ‘reign in RFK Jr.’ What policies could be changed to production ag before he is ‘reigned in’? How much damage could happen before Trump puts his foot down? “Maybe Trump will be better for the general economy, however, I’m struggling to see how he will bring anything other than pain to agriculture. I support domestic production of goods, but Trump’s sledgehammer approach seems like significant pain to the American farmer. “To be clear, I’m an undecided voter. I have equally as many questions/concerns about the Democrats. I am 40 years old with a young family, full-time career off the farm, raise row crops, hay, cow/calf operation, and direct-to-consumer beef business. I bust my ass off to raise my family and help get my farming career off and running and I feel that NEITHER candidate aligns with me. This will be a difficult decision for me when it comes time to vote….dang right I will vote!” |
I asked my panel of ag analysts and here are some comments received:
• “I just don’t see how there’s any comparison. I get the concern about Trump. But the alternative?”
• “Lack of support for agriculture? Trump offset the pain of tariffs for ag with around $28 billion in trade aid and was a huge supporter of the farm bill. Biden and Harris haven’t lifted a finger.”
• “While I appreciate the concern, I also think you have to look at what Harris (and her party) have actually done (versus what she is saying she will do). It’s the view of many in her party that they should be able to take a significant share of what a farmer and rancher produces by “busting their ass off” and give it to others in the name of fairness.”
• “As for 40B/45Z, there is strong GOP lawmaker support.”
• “I also care a great deal about the 20% pass-through deduction, protecting stepped-up basis, and reducing the death tax…all of which the Dems seem content on coming after.”
• The Harris agenda for agriculture:
— “The Harris ag agenda focuses on rural health care, an important topic in farm country.”
— “Elimination of stepped-up basis, producing an immediate average tax bill on farmers and ranchers of thousands per farm. That is just one tax increase out of many to expect. Continued high inflation and interest rates to contain it due to rampant spending. Read: Higher costs of production.”
— “A moribund trade agenda.”
— “An EV vehicle mandate and other policies (e.g., disqualification of biofuels for SAF) that kill renewable fuels. Energy policies that generally drive up costs. Farms are energy intensive.”
— “Regulations that harm producers and drive up costs. Regulations that take away crop protection products. Regs that hinder biotech. “
— “WOTUS regs. Climate regs.”
— “Ignoring real farmers and ranchers in farm policy: no help unless you earn less than $350,000 annually in gross receipts.”
— “Likely movement to focus crop insurance on the same universe. Same with disaster aid. No longer agriculture policy but DEI policy.”
— “Don’t be surprised if they try to kill the commodity title and one day crop insurance, focusing everything on conservation and climate. Privately, Ds have said this.”
— “No H2A improvements because Ds want to hold out for amnesty.”
— “RFK’s vision for agriculture is the Democratic vision for agriculture, not surprisingly because he is a Democrat. Trump said it at a recent speech: ‘I will let him run amuck for a while and then I will have to rein him in.’”
• Trump’s ag agenda:
— “Extend tax cuts and improve upon. No elimination of stepped-up basis.”
— “Upside is Trump will pursue trade agreements that promote U.S. exports. Downside is he would also impose tariffs on China that could invite retaliation. If he does, expect that he will once again stand by producers to see them through it.”
— “Promote energy independence, driving down cost of oil and gas, reducing fertilizer and other costs of production. Eliminate the EV mandate. Make biofuels eligible for SAF. Might be forced to grant waivers to RFS (as court forced Biden to do) but will also aim for high levels, including year-round E15. His administration granted 34 SREs but also see below.
— “Will support deregulation, helping producers. Non-woke farm policy, including an effective safety net under commodity title and crop insurance and ad hoc programs.”
— “Probably not any better than Ds on farm labor.”
Another farm policy contact texted: “Lots to like about Trump for agriculture. Negatives are tariffs, labor, and RFK influence. Absolutely nothing to like about Harris for agriculture. Trump will also listen to key lawmakers on agriculture… Boozman, Hoeven, Thompson, A. Scott, etc. These lawmakers understand real agriculture and the needs of producers. In short, it’s not even a contest. Finally: “It must be hard for Vilsack to throw out so many billions of dollars and not accidentally hit a full-time farmer or rancher.”
— Why limited info on Trump’s alleged assassination attempts? There are a few key reasons why there hasn’t been more detailed information released about the two alleged assassination attempts on Donald Trump:
• Ongoing investigations: Both cases are still under active investigation by law enforcement. Authorities are likely being cautious about releasing too many details that could compromise their ongoing work.
• Limited public statements: Trump and his team have made relatively few public statements about the incidents, which has limited the flow of information.
• Lack of clear motives: In both cases, investigators have struggled to establish clear motives for the alleged attackers. Without a manifesto or obvious political agenda, there’s less of a compelling narrative for media coverage.
• Quick shifts in public attention: The news cycle moves extremely quickly, and without new developments, media focus has tended to move on to other stories relatively quickly after each incident.
• Caution in reporting: Given the sensitive nature of assassination attempts, many media outlets have been cautious about speculating or reporting unconfirmed details.
• Limited background information: In the case of Ryan Routh, while some details have emerged about his background, there still seems to be limited information available about his personal history or potential motivations.
• Focus on security concerns: Much of the follow-up coverage has centered on questions about Secret Service protocols and how the attackers were able to get close to Trump, rather than on the attackers themselves.
• Conspiracy theories: The lack of clear information has led to the spread of various conspiracy theories, which may have muddied the waters in terms of public understanding of the events.
Bottom line: As investigations progress, more information may come to light. However, the complex nature of these cases and the sensitivity surrounding attacks on political figures means that full details may take time to emerge or may never be fully disclosed to the public.
— Democrats calling Trump a fascist is a familiar tactic in presidential years. There is a long history of Democratic politicians and their supporters labeling Republican presidential candidates as fascists, according to the Washington Examiner (link). This trend has spanned several decades: The practice of calling Republican nominees fascists has been ongoing for at least 60 years, dating back to the 1964 election.
Notable examples of Republican presidential candidates who have been labeled as fascists include:
• Barry Goldwater in 1964
• Ronald Reagan in the 1980s
• George W. Bush in the early 2000s
• Mitt Romney in 2012
• Donald Trump in 2016 and 2024
The article from the Washington Examiner states that this has been “an integral part of the Democratic political playbook, utilized almost as much as calling the Republican nominee a racist.” The practice extends beyond just presidential candidates, with other Republican figures like Paul Ryan also being compared to fascists.
| |
| OTHER EVENTS & HEARINGS |
Monday, Oct. 28
• U.S./China Financial Working Group and the Economic Working Group meeting; Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to appear.
• Bankers’ meeting. American Bankers Association (ABA) holds its 2024 annual Convention. Runs through Tuesday.
• Election integrity. Brookings Institution discussion on “Making Every Vote Count: Protecting Election Integrity.”
• U.S. Middle East policy. Middle East Institute virtual discussion on “Arab American Voters and US Middle East Policy.”
• Southern Hemisphere views on U.S. election. German Marshall Fund of the United States virtual discussion on “Southern Views on the U.S. Elections,” focusing on views from the Southern Hemisphere.
• Senate elections. Washington Post Live virtual discussion on “The Fight for the Senate, Michigan and 2024 Stakes.”
• Election fraud. National Press Club discussion on “Election Fraud.”
• Election polls. Jews United for Democracy and Justice virtual discussion on “Countdown 2024: What Are the Polls Telling Us and Are They right?”
Tuesday, Oct. 29
• Grain Inspection panel. Agricultural Marketing Service meeting of the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee, including general program updates; Presentations on cyber security; and Discussions about equipment equivalency, the container handbook, handbook reviews and industry engagement, technology in grain inspection, lab scales, phytosanitary issuance policy, and emerging grain export issues; runs through Wednesday.
• Bankers’ meeting. Final day of the American Bankers Association 2024 annual Convention. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to appear.
• AI issues. Wilson Center’s Canada Institute 2024 Canada/U.S. Legal Symposium on “Artificial Intelligence Regulation, Governance, and Liability.”
• U.S./Canada relations. Hudson Institute discussion on “Left Out in the Cold? Reviving U.S./Canada Relations.”
• Automobile issues. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration meeting of the NHTSA Safety Research Portfolio’s Vehicle Safety Research and Behavioral Safety Research Offices to provide public and stakeholder outreach regarding research activities at NHTSA for both vehicle and behavioral safety, including expected near-term deliverables, with attention on Vehicle Electronics/Cybersecurity & Alternative Fuels; Automated Driving Systems; Driver Assistance; runs through Wednesday.
• Consumer financial services. American Bar Association’s Business Law Section virtual 2024 Consumer Financial Services Conference; runs through Wednesday.
• North Korean troops in Russia. Center for Strategic and International Studies virtual discussion on “Crossing the Rubicon: North Korea Sends Troops to Russia,” as part of the Impossible State podcast.
• Supreme Court ruling on Cheron deference. Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies virtual discussion on “What Does ‘New’ Mean? Agency Action Post-Chevron,” examining a Supreme Court ruling that sharply cut back the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer.
• Elections. George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs discussion on “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know (and Ask) About the U.S. Electoral Process.”
• Sweden NATO membership. Georgetown University’s Master of Science in Foreign Service discussion on “Sweden’s accession to NATO, the relationship between Sweden and the U.S., and the implications of Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine for Europe’s geopolitical landscape.”
• Broadband. Federal Communications Bar Association virtual discussion on “Fast-Tracking Broadband Deployment: How Can States Streamline Pole Attachments.”
• Gensler remarks. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s International Institute on Audit Regulation virtual discussion with SEC Chair Gary Gensler.
• State ballot issues. Brennan Center for Justice virtual discussion on “What’s at Stake on State Ballots.”
• China/Taiwan issues. Institute of World Politics discussion on “Towards a New Equilibrium: Strategic Deterrence on the Taiwan Strait Crisis.”
Wednesday, Oct. 30
• U.S. elections. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research discussion on “Election 2024: The Final Countdown.”
• Energy technologies. International Energy Agency virtual media briefing on a new report, Energy Technology Perspectives 2024, focusing on the manufacturing and trade of major clean energy technologies.
• U.S./Chile panel. State Department meeting of the United States/Chile Environmental Affairs Council and Joint Commission for Environmental Cooperation to review implementation of Chapter 19 (Environment) of the Free Trade Agreement, and the Commission will review implementation of the Environmental Conservation Act.
• North Korea issues. George Washington University Institute for Korean Studies Korea Policy Forum on “Changes in North Korea and the 8/15 Unification Doctrine.”
• Energy and climate in Latin America. Inter-American Dialogue virtual discussion on “The U.S. Election and the Future of Energy and Climate in Latin America.”
• Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Yemen. Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft virtual discussion on “What is the Future of the Axis of Resistance?” focusing on Hezbollah, Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, Assad-led Syria, the Houthis, Hamas and Yemen.
• Geopolitics. Atlantic Council discussion on “Geopolitcs and the Next U.S. President.”
• IMF anniversary. Peterson Institute for International Economics virtual discussion on “The IMF on its 80th Anniversary.”
• Global terrorism. Center for Strategic and International Studies virtual discussion on “The Global Terrorism Landscape.”
Thursday, Oct. 31
• U.S./EU trade. Washington International Trade Association discussion on “The Future of U.S./EU Trade and Investment.”
• 5G and election discussion. PunchBowl News discussion on “5G and America’s Competitiveness” followed by a discussion with Punchbowl News reporters on “the political landscape ahead of the 2024 elections and the busy lame-duck calendar.”
• U.S. foreign aid. Center for Global Development discussion on “Building on a Legacy of Progress: Opportunities to Advance U.S. Foreign Aid Effectiveness.”
• Mexican constitutional changes. Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute virtual discussion on “Mexico’s Constitutional Changes: Energy Outlook and Implications.”
• Russian hackers. Institute of World Politics virtual lecture on “Russia’s Cyber Power: The Role of Non-State Hackers and Private-Sector Contractors.”
• Sino-Russian relations. George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs discussion on “What Drives the Sino-Russian Partnership Regime Insecurity, Aggressive Overreach, and the Alignment between Moscow and Beijing.”
• U.S./German relations and Middle East conflict. American Institute for Contemporary German Studies discussion on “German and U.S. Relations with Israel amid Escalating Conflict in the Middle East.”
• Global technology. Center for Strategic and International Studies virtual discussion on “Staying Ahead in the Global Technology Race.”
Friday, Nov. 1
• China security sector. Georgetown University’s Initiative for U.S./China Dialogue on Global Issues virtual discussion on “The Impact of China’s Security Sector Assistance on State Fragility: The Case of Mali.”
• PFAS and biosolids. American Association for the Advancement of Science (virtual discussion on “Land Applied Biosolids and PFAS Exposure.”
| ECONOMIC REPORTS & EVENTS |
The economic calendar will see the advance estimate of U.S. Q3 GDP on Wednesday, followed by a reading on the Federal Reserve’s favored inflation gauge — the personal consumption expenditures price index — on Thursday. Finally, the October jobs report will come out on Friday. The consensus forecast anticipates a rise of 125,000 in U.S. payrolls for October, but two factors could disrupt expectations:
• Hurricane Helene’s impact: Severe devastation in the Southeast may hinder data collection for both establishment and household surveys. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is experienced in managing such disruptions, but the storm might still affect October’s numbers and prompt larger-than-usual revisions when November’s data is released on Dec. 6.
• Strike activity: Strikes involving 38,000 aerospace workers and 3,400 hotel workers will temporarily reduce payroll counts in manufacturing and hospitality. While the affected jobs will return once the strikes are resolved, ongoing labor disputes at Boeing and Textron could disrupt hiring and layoffs in related industries if they persist, potentially impacting future employment figures.
Of note: According to the CME FedWatch tool, around 95% of market participants expect the Federal Open Market Committee to cut its benchmark lending rate by 25 basis points on Nov. 7, while about 5% expect no change.
Monday, Oct. 28
• U.S./China Financial Working Group and the Economic Working Group meeting; Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to appear.
• Bankers’ meeting. The American Bankers Association (ABA) holds its 2024 annual Convention. Runs through Tuesday.
• Dallas Fed Mfg. Survey
Tuesday, Oct. 29
• Bankers’ meeting. Final day of the American Bankers Association (ABA) 2024 annual Convention. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to appear.
• Consumer financial services. The American Bar Association’s (ABA) Business Law Section holds its virtual 2024 Consumer Financial Services Conference; runs through Wednesday.
• International Trade in Goods
• Wholesale Inventories
• S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller HPI
• FHFA House Price Index
• Consumer Confidence
Wednesday, Oct. 30
• ADP Employment Report
• GDP
• Pending Home Sales Index
Thursday, Oct. 31
• Jobless Claims
• Personal Income & Outlays
• Employment Cost Index
• Chicago PMI
• Fed Balance Sheet
• Money Supply
Friday, Nov. 1
• Employment
• PMI Composite Final
• ISM Services Index
• Construction Spending
| KEY USDA & INTERNATIONAL AG & ENERGY REPORTS & EVENTS |
Ag focus this week: The European Commission will release its monthly crop conditions report on Monday, providing insights into regional agricultural performance. On Tuesday, WH Group, the world’s largest pork producer, will publish its financial results, offering a snapshot of global meat markets. Additionally, market attention will remain on the progress of U.S. harvests throughout the week, with implications for commodity prices and supply chains.
Energy sector focus: Major energy companies like BP, Shell, Chevron and ExxonMobil will report 3Q earnings during the week. Other big firms due to report include PetroChina, Sinopec and TotalEnergies.
Monday, Oct. 28
Ag reports and events:
• JRC MARS bulletin on crop conditions in Europe
• Export Inspections
• Crop Progress
Energy reports and events:
• Brent December options expire
• Earnings: Sinopec; Cnooc; India Oil; Galp
• Holiday: Greece, New Zealand
Tuesday, Oct. 29
Ag reports and events:
• EU weekly grain, oilseed import and export data
• Earnings: WH Group
• Livestock and Meat Domestic Data
Energy reports and events:
• API weekly U.S. oil inventory report
• Future Investment Initiative, Riyadh; runs through Thursday
• Earnings: PetroChina, China Oilfield Services, OMV, BP, Phillips 66
• Holiday: Turkey
Wednesday, Oct. 30
Ag reports and events:
• Cotton and Wool Outlook Tables
• Oil Crops Outlook
• Feed Outlook
• Wheat Outlook
• Rice Outlook
• Egg Products
• Broiler Hatchery
Energy reports and events:
• EIA Petroleum Status Report
• Weekly Ethanol Production
• Genscape weekly crude inventory report
• Earnings: Hess, Aker BP, BASF
Thursday, Oct. 31
Ag reports and events:
• Malaysia’s October palm oil exports
• Port of Rouen data on French grain exports
• Export Sales
• Agricultural Prices
Energy reports and events:
• EIA Natural Gas Report
• Singapore onshore oil product stockpile weekly data
• BNEF Energy Transition Forum, Seoul
• Brent December futures expire
• Earnings: Shell, TotalEnergies, Repsol, Technip Energies, ConocoPhillips, Cheniere, Cenovus, Canadian Natural Resources
* Holiday: Malaysia, Singapore
Friday, Nov. 1
Ag reports and events:
• CFTC Commitments of Traders report
• FranceAgriMer’s weekly crop condition report
• Cotton System
• Fats & Oils
• Grain Crushings
• Flour Milling
• Peanut Prices
Energy reports and events:
• Baker Hughes weekly U.S. oil/gas rig counts
• ICE weekly Commitments of Traders report for Brent, gasoil
• Holiday: France, India
| KEY LINKS |
WASDE | Crop Production | USDA weekly reports | Crop Progress | Food prices | Farm income | Export Sales weekly | ERP dashboard | California phase-out of gas-powered vehicles | RFS | IRA: Biofuels | IRA: Ag | | Russia/Ukraine war, lessons learned | | SCOTUS on WOTUS | SCOTUS on Prop 12 pork | New farm bill primer | | Gov’t payments to farmers by program | Farmer working capital | USDA Ag Outlook Forum |