Farm Groups Sound Alarm Over Trump’s China Trade War Escalation

While most countries do try and protect some industries, open trading arrangements have fueled the growth of the world economy since the end of WWII.

Had we gone back to the trade policies of the 1920’s, which is where the isolationists and Trump are, we would get the same results.

India, Russian and most of Eastern Europe tried to build a trade wall around themselves too.

They would up with weak economies, uncompetitive industries and a lower standard of living.

Taht’s what Trump’s trade policies will eventually lead us. Isolated, and irrelevant.

Trump himself is already irrelevant on the world stage. Our allies avoid him like plague, and our enemies have learned how to exploit his childishness, stupidity and greed.

 

Protectionism has been discredited on these board again and again.

Trump is losing this issue overwhelmingly with the American tax payer

 

Trumpsters have short memories, as your post makes clear.

History also discredits your claims.

Why would an industry in a protected market, one effectively subsidized by government protection, bother with taking the risk of investing on global market????

History suggest that they do not. If they did, you’d be able to go down to your Skoda, Warburg, Trabant, or Moskvich dealer and go car shopping.

 

I see you ignored my suggestion to look at my 3 previous posts. It's globalist market speculators in the agricultural industry who are taking losses and need subsidies. When exporters instead domestically market what they normally export prices / profits plunge. The exporters getting subsidies ALREADY risked, and lost on global marketing investment. So, naturally must invest in global marketing more responsibly going forward. I think this might be to complex a topic for you.

 

That wasn't the question, do you support the bailouts to the farmers from Trump's tariffs.

 

4 th time I've said it this morning! YES! I support the tariffs. I support the subsidies.

 

That is a socialist policy.

 

Really?! Someone beat you to the COMMIE punchline ... though I did all the laughing. Try reading some of the thread before repeating someone elses faux pas.

 

Well farmers have been getting subsidies for years, and now we are giving them more for not growing food.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article233291312.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...-richer-hasten-small-farm-failure-study-says/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

 

So the socialist program is bad for America? Very few, in fact NO policy is flawless. In previous posts I've laid out exclusions to subsidies, though I focused on the ones relevant to China and tariffs. Subsidies are SUPPOSED to be reviewed every year, but the system needs an overhaul, and no one's interested or even serious about it. Pelosi is content to toss out at indiscriminate deficit pkg. and split the spoils 50/50 with the GOP. Anyway, I cited the offset in tariffs and if you want to continue, do some reading. I don't like repeating

 

No I got my crop in and it is in excellent condition. From what I hear from people who are traveling the corn belt, is that the crop in my location is far better looking than most. I will produce a very good yield as of today and will be selling it for more than last year. I sepect that the national average will come in down from the current estimates and we will have near record breaking low number of acres harvested (short term last ten years) this even with China not buying grain will not increase the carryover bu a huge number.

 

What are you even talking about? When a farmer harvests his crop he takes it to the local buyer. The farmers have ZERO control over whether that product gets eventually resold domestically or abroad. The "exporters" aren't getting subsidies. The farmers are.

 

Wow ... you're close to illiterate.

 

You should discuss that with the farmers who watched their Chinese soybean market, which they had been nurturing for ten years, evaporate witha bluster into a tv camera.

The bill for subsiding that is already in your tab, since it’s borrowed money.

What Trumpsters don’t want to even acknowledge is that the United States is not doing anyone any harm by isolating itself. But over time, it will lower its standard of living, and have uncompetitive industries stuck inside protected markets. This seems to be what you want.

I doubt that it ever occurred to Trump (and certainly not to his mob) that China might just go to a different supplier when the US government adopts better thy neighbor trade policies.

Abandoning the legacy of post WWII leadership has been a central theme of the Trump presidency.

 

Since you are Nobel economist, what is your solution to the massive trade deficit we have had over the last 26 years since the signing of NAFTA? I'd like to get the prospective from such a noted economist as I'm a mere analyst.

 

Gibberish ... poor global market speculator lost big & cried? Go observe the craps tables in Vegas.

 

Perhaps you can document your claim about speculators......

As for the rest, Trump decided on trade wars because they sound good to his parochial base. The results have been as his critics predicted.

You can rationalize it and look far and wide for excuses, but you can’t change that.

 

Document speculation? Does the poor soy farmer have contract or purchase order for all his soy? Why hasn't he enforced the terms? Your pretzel logic is ridiculous. Last reply: Poor farrmer! No subsidies! Even in the case of the speculators, a 1 time subsidy potentially saves the farm by allowing the farmer to grow a different crop and market domestically. Subsidies are a stop gap measure, not a solution, and they are necessary if you want strong US ag and to ease farmers suffering. Tariffs ease taxpayers suffering. Spinning isn't working ...

 

What is bad, is Trump creating a trade war, then compensation specific people. FYI, most farms are corporate, so this is all corporate welfare !!!!!

 

Ridiculous. Trump is a free trader. China is not. He is going to war with them economically. If the goals are reached we will have more free trade and a better US economy. If not, things won't be any worse.

 

Specific people eh? What's the criteria for subsidies? Corporations own more land, suffer bigger losses, get more in subsidies. Ag subsidies aren't "all" corporate welfare, and as I've said 5 or 6 times, global marketers, to include corps should be excluded from domestic subsidies. The ag program needs an overhaul, < 2nd time I've said that ... but subsidizing domestic market producers is aimed at preserving the US domestic food supply. We have oil reserves, and food stocks are just as vital. China started the trade war a long time ago, and Trump's trying to win back some ground. It won't be painless, wars never are.

 

So listen to some anonymous person here or the FB or CoC?

 

I guess you would rather be owned by the chinese as long as you get your cheap iPhone

 

Mass shootings including general criminals is not the same as those of domestic terrorists.

Don't defend domestic terrorists.

If businesses get to make profits, consumers get to have inexpensive products.

 

Of course not.. It doesn't fit your narrative. Mass murder is mass murder regardless of what qualifier you want to try and attach.