Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 643K
  • Politics 

Many US midwestern grain farmers will lose money this year after reaping a bumper crop, and the outlook for their future income is bleak.

US farmers harvested some of the largest corn and soybean crops in history this year. Big harvests traditionally weigh on crop prices because of plentiful supply. And those price pressures comes at a time when costs remain persistently high to grow corn and soybeans, the US’s most valuable crops.


That double whammy is hurting farmers. Income will vary per farmer and per state, yet even for producers in top agricultural states such as Illinois, losses could be staggering.

Agricultural economists from the University of Illinois and Ohio State University estimate that the average Illinois farm could make a loss of $30,000 for 2024. Their projections place farm incomes at the lowest level since the 1980s’ farm crisis led to bankruptcies.

The decks are stacked against farmers for 2025 as well. Costs for seed, fertilizer and other inputs rose during 2022, fueled by the Russia-Ukraine war, which also lifted crop prices to record highs.

While crop prices are down nearly 50% from those highs, in part due to a global supply glut, input prices remain elevated. Sterling Smith, an independent commodities researcher, says the national average break-even price for corn is $5.67 a bushel, and $12.72 a bushel for soybeans. Those levels are far above current Chicago Board of Trade most-active futures prices of $4.43 for corn and $9.76 for soybeans.

“We’re looking at this crop, that, when it gets planted, of being a money-loser next year,” Smith says.

And things could look worse for farmers if Donald Trump places tariffs on imports. Trump pledged to impose across-the-board tariffs of 20% on all US imports, with a 60% tariff on Chinese goods. Recently, he advocated for 25% tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.

...

Until the first trade war between China and the US in 2018, China was the No 1 destination for US agricultural goods. That came to a halt during the trade war, although China and the US eventually signed an agreement in 2019 to import a set amount of agricultural goods for two years.

During the skirmish, China began diversifying its suppliers, including buying from Brazil. Brazil was already a global grower and exporter of soybeans, but Chinese investment ramped up expansion, Smith says.

“China is not going to put their food supply at risk,” Smith says.

Brazil increased their soybean production by the equivalent of an area the size of the state of Kansas, and some estimates suggest it has as much as 70m acres (28m hectares) of unused pastureland it can plant to crops, the equivalent of two states the size of Iowa.

Brazil can also grow the equivalent of two crops in one year, planting soybeans in September and after that harvest, quickly plant a corn crop, he says, increasing Brazilian corn production. If Brazil continues with its aggressive expansion and the US continues its traditional output, a global situation of habitual oversupply will result, especially for soybeans, Smith says.
Hmmm, didn't the tariffs during his first administration impact the farmers?

This seems like another area where we really need to look for more balance, we need food producers, we should pay enough for them to stay in business and live. Of course, I believe we may also need to consider the actual crops. Why do we grow so many acres of these low-cost grain crops?
 
Not gonna lie, I kinda hope farm bankruptcies triple over the next 4 years. Some as trade war casualties, others due to a lack of affordable labor.
See this is where I have issues with the fuck around and find out position.

I just can't hope for people to struggle, but this is a case if they don't struggle, they will never learn. So, I'm torn.

Of course, farm bankruptcies probably only impact the family farms and not the corporate farms. We probably need to get rid of all subsidies and let the markets work for the farmers. If that means food prices go up, it's ok. You can't demand low food prices, and living wages for farmers, can you?
 


Not what Trump ran on but I agree with the broad strokes of what Pete Hegseth says here.
 
NATO or European defense minus America is non-existent, it returns to everyone being for themselves again, and honestly at this stage in time there’s a decent chance Europe without America would fragment and Balkanize.
ever heard of the european union? god, it boggles the mind some of the stupid shit that gets posted here.

how can they separate and go off on their own when they share a common currency? did you see how hard brexit was? and how stupid and destructive? brexit was easy compared to, say, a frexit.
 
Our military spending and commitments spearhead our nuclear and anti-proliferation strategy. If you reduce our commitments and spend, you have to accept that you will live in a world with several more nuclear powers. The fact that that is already happening (North Korea, Iran, KSA) doesn't make this strategy less relevant - it just increases dramatically the complexity of the situation every time a new nation that joins the club...

You have to manage this carefully and over decades - this is one issue where you can't FAFO.
 
Our military spending and commitments spearhead our nuclear and anti-proliferation strategy. If you reduce our commitments and spend, you have to accept that you will live in a world with several more nuclear powers. The fact that that is already happening (North Korea, Iran, KSA) doesn't make this strategy less relevant - it just increases dramatically the complexity of the situation every time a new nation that joins the club...

You have to manage this carefully and over decades - this is one issue where you can't FAFO.
ksa? i havent heard about that.
 


Not what Trump ran on but I agree with the broad strokes of what Pete Hegseth says here.

i would also agree with him if he said the sky was blue.

i think you are reaching here. "backing our allies and standing up to enemies" is more tautology than policy. it's literally what you have to do with allies, or else they aren't allies. you dont have to stand up to enemies but that is usually the point of having them. i don't know that this guy should get credit for asserting a=a. that trump thinks a=whatever the fuck trump wants is too low a bar for comparison.
 
PRRI year-end poll:

"...Republican voters and voters who score high on the authoritarianism scale are the most likely to agree that the U.S. military should put undocumented immigrants into internment camps until they can be deported.
  • Just one in four voters (26%) agree that the U.S. military should put immigrants who are in the country illegally into internment camps until they can be deported.
  • Republican voters (46%) are more than twice as likely as independent voters (19%) and more than five times as likely as Democratic voters (8%) to agree with this policy.
  • American voters who hold highly authoritarian views are six times as likely to agree with placing undocumented immigrants into such camps until they can be deported than American voters who largely reject authoritarianism (48% v. 8%).

1735593359503.jpeg

 

Russia rejects Trump’s Ukraine peace proposals​


"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected proposals Monday floated by President-elect Trump’s allies to end the war in Ukraine, dealing a major setback for the incoming president’s hopes to freeze the conflict.

In an interview with Russian state-run media outlet TASS, Lavrov said Moscow has “not received any official signals regarding a settlement in Ukraine” but the Kremlin was resistant to those unofficial ideas.

“We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine,” he said, responding to leaked reports of Trump’s proposals.

Lavrov called for “reliable and legally binding agreements that would eliminate the root causes of the conflict and seal a mechanism precluding the possibility of their violation.” ..."
 
If you want a take a swing at the defense budget, I'd start by taking a closer look at the $1.7 trillion we are spending over 30 years to modernize our nuclear arsenal. While we certainly need to do some modernization, that's a huge number that can buy a lot of butter.
 
Not to mention that Gilded Age business tycoons often treated their workers like shit because there were no legal restraints on them not to do so, and so many workers tried to organize labor unions to strike for better pay, working conditions, etc. And many of these strikes were violently opposed by the company owners and aided by the state and federal governments. Hundreds of workers were killed in violent strikes in that era - The National Railroad Strike of 1877, the Chicago Haymarket Square Riot, the Pullman Strike, the Homestead Strike, and so on. Ugly stuff, and it certainly wasn't a paradise for many, or even most, workers.

Also, instead of the capitalist idea of corporate competition, many companies formed monopolies which allowed for crappy products and high prices - farmers were routinely the victims of price gouging by railroad companies to move their products to market, for example. It may have been great for the wealthiest upper class, but it sure as hell wasn't all that great for the working class. But of course as we all know that's not who Trump is talking about - he's talking about himself and his buddies like Elon and that LA Times owner.
The Gilded Age was the RNC’s yearning for decades. Then in 2016 God sent them a loudmouthed charlatan who delivered and promises more. The “God sent” are trump’s words… he has convinced himself.
 
Hmmm, didn't the tariffs during his first administration impact the farmers?

This seems like another area where we really need to look for more balance, we need food producers, we should pay enough for them to stay in business and live. Of course, I believe we may also need to consider the actual crops. Why do we grow so many acres of these low-cost grain crops?
Why grow grain? BIG demand, easier to grow, heap big profit on large scale planting.
 
1. i think 99.99% of american people -- including virtually everyone on this board -- have no idea how to right size the defense budget because it takes vast knowledge even to know what everything is and why its there.

2. this is a good reason to elect leaders you can trust. then you can relax and think, the president and his advisors have this. they might not always make the right decisions but at least they are informed and well-thought out.

3. this is an especially good reason to avoid electing people who you are assuming are lying to you. if your case for voting for a president is that he wont do what he says, then by definition you cant trust them with a defense budget. and then we're back to the problem in step 1 -- none of us know how to do this.
 
Back
Top