|
| it`s human nature to always take the easy path, even if their situation is slowly digressing. brazil was always going to expand and always be the low cost producer (cheaper land costs) . china was always going to seek out the lowest cost source of what they need, just because we buy $400 billion more in products from them, they willingly aren`t going to source $13 beans from us if brazil will sell them for $12 or cheaper. the argument can be made that the US demanding fair trade from china sped up the inevitable of a trade war, which would trickle down to ag commodities. however, in going this route that we are on, we are going into this on our own terms, instead of more US workers under-employed, $1 trillion china trade deficit and china would still buy brazilian beans so long as they are the better deal.
news stories of companies that have shall we say a block of wood and they send the block to canada and canada drills a hole in it and ships it back to the US, then it gets painted and sent back to canada where they drill more holes and ship it back to the US where the company cries "woe is me! we`re paying 2 or 3 tariffs each time our block of wood goes to canada to get holes drilled in it!!! we can`t afford it!!" where those poverty claims have any substance or not who knows? and i`m sure a farmer who bought $20,000 land pattern tiled it and a yard full of new paint, they are sweating bullets on how they`ll pay for everything with $9 beans and $4 corn. they probably will have misdirected anger from their situation and will vote democrat in 2026 and 2028.
if the tariff leverage strategy does yield positive results the left will say "yah...but.... " . | |
|
Tariffs and the art of the deal
