Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade War

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _cinepro »

Chap wrote:Why isn't congress moving to block the President's power to throw tax dollars around to put sticking plasters on the obvious consequences of his wrecking the US's international trading relationships?


Maybe they are...

“You have a terrible policy that sends farmers to the poorhouse, and then you put them on welfare, and we borrow the money from other countries,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told reporters in Washington Tuesday. “It’s hard to believe there isn’t an outright revolt right now in Congress.”

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski also bristled about singling out farmers who are already feeling the negative effects of Trump’s escalating trade war with China and the European Union.

“What about the manufacturing sector? What about the energy sector? The oil and gas industries?” Murkowski said Tuesday. “Where do you draw the line? I’ve got some real concerns.”

Already miffed by the president’s actions on trade, adding subsidies for farmers is seen by many Republicans in Congress as making an unfortunate situation worse.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans- ... 52800.html

_Bach
_Emeritus
Posts: 1606
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _Bach »

cinepro wrote:This is definitely one area where everyone should be against Trump.

Perhaps one area where it would be great to find just one poster on this board who had any experience in commerce, trade, capitalizing a business with international operations or, at least running a 7-11.

Gotta love EA and his I Phone. Would love to see him demonstrate something even close to a lemonade stand!

Waiting.

Probably easier to talk about Perfume!!!
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Bach wrote:Probably easier to talk about Perfume!!!

Not easier, but probably better.

Image
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _canpakes »

ajax18 wrote:Your points make sense. I just don't think traditional conservative views on trade like that of Ted Cruz would have broken the blue wall and won the presidential election.

ajax, check out the post a few above this one, by bach. It’s timely, because it mentions the iPhone. In this case,the iPhone is a fine example of both why (1) Trump’s simplified narrative doesn't intend to tell you the whole story, and (2) how bach always seems to display a strong ironic idiocy.

But, anyway, here’s one reason why the trade deficit ain’t exactly what it is commonly claimed to be:

Protectionists like to cite the U.S. trade deficit—last year imports of goods and services exceeded exports by $501 billion—as evidence that unfair trade agreements have hurt American competitiveness. But a new working paper from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, published in March, challenges this narrative: Turns out, America’s trade deficit isn’t nearly as large as the official figures suggest.

To illustrate this finding, the economists Fatih Guvenen, Raymond Mataloni, Dylan Rassier and Kim Ruhl examine the iPhone. The device is said to be “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.” Yet to lower its tax bill, Apple reports that its iPhone profits were earned in neither place, but were instead accrued in some other country.

Turns out, America’s trade deficit isn’t nearly as large as the official figures suggest.

Assume an iPhone is assembled in China for $250 and sells in Europe and the U.S. for $750. Apple’s profit is $500. Often that economic value gets attributed to an Apple subsidiary set up in a low-tax nation like Ireland or Luxembourg.

If most iPhone development is actually done in California, most of the $500 represents American production and should be included in U.S. gross domestic product. Then, when an iPhone is sold in Europe, that value should count as an export from the U.S. When a phone is instead sold in the U.S., the net amount of the import should only be the $250 cost of manufacturing in Asia, since the rest is produced by Californians.

With this in mind, the study’s authors estimate how much American trade is mismeasured. Although the official trade deficit in 2012 was $537 billion, they conclude that U.S. exports were undercounted and imports overstated by a combined $280 billion. With this adjustment, the real trade deficit that year shrinks to $257 billion—or about 1.6% of GDP. Trade still isn’t balanced, but the deficit appears to be less than half the size everyone thought.

In other words, more than half the goods and services that were counted in the U.S. trade deficit actually were produced right here in America. This makes it harder to argue that an outsize trade deficit is responsible for American manufacturing’s woes. It’s true that traditional blue-collar workers have had trouble competing globally. But high-skilled American workers and the companies that employ them have been competing just fine.


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front ... e-deficit/
_Gunnar
_Emeritus
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _Gunnar »

ajax18 wrote:Is that still true even if China is a communist country?

:lol: :lol: I think it's hilarious that you think China is still a Communist country!
It's not a communist country, and hasn't been since the late 70s, when Deng Xiaoping redesigned the economy.

It's now what's sometimes called "socialist market economy", which is essentially a capitalist economy in which the government owns some large sectors. At that, it differs from Western capitalist countries largely in degree, and sometimes not very much. The government owns domains like power, transportation and telecommunications, which are often government-owned or at least heavily regulated in the West, including price controls. There are still over 100 large state-owned enterprises, but these are increasingly being privatized in China, or at least given some autonomy from central government planning.

The private sector now makes up at least 70% of the Chinese economy. The state is still politically repressive in many ways, which puts a drag on the economy from a market standpoint, but political repression is not limited to socialist countries. They keep the word "socialist" in describing their economy, but it bears little resemblance to any socialism Marx or Engels would have recognized. The "Communist" party remains communist only in name.

The resulting system is giving them mixed results. Outside of the state-controlled industries, it's a very wild-west, unregulated system. That means that it grows rapidly and creates a lot of value quickly, but it does a lot of damage in the process, and is often undercutting itself in the long term. They're the recipients of a lot of outsourcing, which they do very cheaply, and they've invested well to take advantage of it. The government is trying very hard to push them into doing original work rather than just underbidding everybody else on drudge work, but they're having only mixed results because the lack of regulations means that shortcuts are more rewarding than long-term investment.

This is going to come back and bite them over the next few decades, but in the meantime they're building up vast national cash reserves to deal with that. How that plays out will probably not be pretty.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _canpakes »

From Rick Wilson :


We're borrowing billions from China to subsidize farmers who are losing billions in a trade war that that's bankrupting them because Donald Trump is an economic ignoramus who doesn't understand trade or markets and his sycophants won't tell him he's wrong.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _canpakes »

From back in March, even before the new increase in tariff scope and cost:

Washington (CNN) — President Donald Trump's trade war made last year tough for American soybean farmers, but 2019 could be the year they really start feeling the pain -- despite Beijing's pledge to resume buying from the United States.

The amount of soybeans sitting in storage in December hit a record high of 3.7 billion bushels, according to new data from the US Department of Agriculture. That's equivalent to about 80% of the total US harvest last year.

Even if China follows through on the additional purchases officials have pledged in trade negotiations, there could still be 900 million bushels for soybeans in storage at the end of this season -- more than the entire crop grown in Iowa, one of the biggest producers.

Farmers have been patient as tariffs have hurt their export markets. The Trump administration made $12 billion in aid available to farmers hurt by tariffs last year, which softened the blow. Plus, some demand for US soybeans shifted to other countries.

"So far, farmers don't feel the pinch directly. But if this lingers on, and we still have billions of bushels in extra supply, this could become more of a 2019 story," said Grant Kimberley, a soybean and corn farmer and director of market development at the Iowa Soybean Association.
But China was previously the biggest export market for American soybean growers.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _canpakes »

Update: the cost of the Great Soybean Bailout continues to grow ...

At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion ...


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ce=Twitter
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _subgenius »

canpakes wrote:Update: the cost of the Great Soybean Bailout continues to grow ...

At $28 billion so far, the farm rescue is more than twice as expensive as the 2009 bailout of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion ...


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ce=Twitter

didn't you guys always point out how that money was paid back? ergo, didn't "cost" anyone...
if you could make up your mind on how you feel about bailouts, that'd be great.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: Trump Bails out Farmers: $12 billion because of Trade Washington

Post by _canpakes »

subgenius wrote:didn't you guys always point out how that money was paid back? ergo, didn't "cost" anyone...
if you could make up your mind on how you feel about bailouts, that'd be great.

Yes, it supposedly was paid back. Not that this mattered to conservatives or Republicans at the time, who spent a great amount of energy bemoaning our horrifying descent into socialism. So the problem that you allude to needs to be directed to your friends and family. ;)

In this case, I’m sure that you’ll do your part for Trump and the farmers by ramping up your consumption of soy.
Post Reply