Press "Enter" to skip to content

Trump Tariffs May Whack South Dakota Agriculture

Donald Trump still doesn’t know what “Smoot-Hawley” means (hint, Donnie: Great Depression!). Republicans managed to kill his trade- and job-killing border adjustment tax last summer, but now, over the objections of America’s closest allies and chief White House economic advisor Gary Cohn, Trump is determined to impose tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum.

Trump’s tariff-mania ignores the pleas of rural America not to destroy their markets:

With good reason, (and I don’t think I’m overstating it by using this word) “horrified” probably best describes the ag community’s reaction. The American Soybean Association and U.S. Wheat Associates jointly stated that “we have repeatedly warned that the risks of retaliation . . . set by such a policy have serious potential consequences for agriculture.” Wheat prices are particularly sensitive to intense foreign competition and stand to take a shellacking if there’s a retaliation from our foreign customers. That explains the huge drop in wheat prices the day after Trump’s tariff announcement [John Tsitrian, “Farmers Are Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop,” The Constant Commoner, 2018.03.03].

Farmers are properly nervous—the countries who sell us the most steel also buy a lot of our farm products:

The main suppliers of foreign steel are Canada, Brazil, South Korea, and Mexico, all countries that are also major consumers of U.S. agricultural products. Many in the agricultural industry fear that retaliatory measures from these countries could hurt U.S. exports of meat and grains [Walt and Alex Breitlinger, Paragon Investments, “Futures File: Trump Tariffs Tank Markets, Could Hurt Farmers,” Des Moines Register, 2018.03.02].

Rural America took a tariff licking a century ago, when protectionist Republicans (with the support of some erring farmers) tariffed American agriculture into a depression with low crop prices and rising equipment prices years before the Dirty Thirties. The Trump tariffs could play that record back. Steel prices are already rising; the Trump tariffs could make things made from steel, like tractors, even more expensive:

With equipment dealers’ holding very limited implement inventory, higher steel costs are likely to make their way through the distribution network quicker than some end users would expect. It’s hard to think of a worse time to drive up the cost of equipment purchases for farmers and ranchers, but manufacturers will likely be forced to pass cost increases on very quickly [Vernon Schmidt, Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association, statement to, 2018.03.02].

Reacting to Trump’s tariff announcement Thursday, Senator John Thune appeared to understand history and ag economics better than Il Duce:

The move was met with near-universal surprise from GOP lawmakers who were taken aback by the suddenness of the White House’s decision. Most GOP senators view the move as a tax hike on American families and expect it to specifically harm agriculture.

“It kind of came as a surprise to most of us,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the third-ranking Senate Republican. “There is no standard operating practice with this administration. Every day is a new adventure for us.”

“There’s always retaliation, and typically a lot of these countries single out agriculture when they do that,” Thune said. “We’re very concerned” [Al Weaver, “Shocked GOP Senators Pan Trump’s Tariff Announcement,” Washington Examiner, 2018.03.01].

In a column focused on urging Trump to help South Dakota ag by putting the U.S. back in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Senator M. Michael Rounds cautiously pokes at The Donald’s rurally reckless metal tariffs:

The president recently announced plans to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. While this may sound like good news for those industries, it is important to consider the negative impacts the policy change could have on goods produced in the United States that use these materials in production, such as farm machinery. Also, we must recognize potential repercussions from other countries, should they retaliate by restricting U.S. produced products being imported to their countries. If other countries do retaliate, it may impact our sales of corn, wheat, soybeans, livestock and other commodities to these countries. We will continue to monitor this development [Sen. M. Michael Rounds, weekly column, reprinted in Dakota War College, 2018.03.04].

Rep. Kristi Noem is too busy thanking Jesus for Shamrock Shakes to figure out if tariff has one f or two, let alone whether she thinks tariffs are good for South Dakota farmers. But it looks like everyone else has it figured out: tariffs on steel and aluminum are more Archie Bunker governance, an outburst informed by some two-second snatch of TV news and a pissy mood:

According to two officials, Trump’s decision to launch a potential trade war was born out of anger at other simmering issues and the result of a broken internal process that has failed to deliver him consensus views that represent the best advice of his team.

On Wednesday evening, the president became “unglued,” in the words of one official familiar with the president’s state of mind [Stephanie Ruhle and Peter Alexander, “Trump Was Angry and ‘Unglued’ When He Started a Trade War, Officials Say,” NBC News, 2018.03.02].


Think about that for a second. People inside the White House are telling the press that bad political news caused the president to become “unglued,” and that he decided the best way to respond to that was to launch a trade war. It’s policymaking out of sheer emotional pique.

…White House staff chaos is letting Trump be Trump. That means feelings dictating outcomes, policymaking by pique — consequences be damned.

It’s bad enough that this approach yielded dangerous tariffs. Imagine if the next time Trump is angry, he starts thinking about North Korea [Zack Beauchamp, “Trump’s Tariff Decision Is One of the Worst Fears About His Presidency Come to Life,” Vox, 2018.03.02].

Quick, Kristi! Bring The Donald a Shamrock Shake—maybe that will cool him down and save South Dakota farmers from the Trump-tariff trade war.


  1. mike from iowa 2018-03-04 17:44

    Drumpf sez winning a trade war is easy. The WH today said no exceptions for steel and aluminum tariffs. Mexico has already increased its purchase of Brazil corn by millions of tonnes.

    Canada is freaking out, too. Maybe this will kill KXL for good.

  2. Roger Cornelius 2018-03-04 20:01

    Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, charging for forward with little or no regard for the ripple affects and consequences of his insanity. American consumers, the ag community, and business will be left to pay for this tariff war.
    Trump thinks that all wars or winnable because he is president neglecting the fact that there are always casualties of war.

  3. John Tsitrian 2018-03-04 20:37

    Trump doesn’t get that trade is not a zero-sum game. It’s a positive-sum game because both sides gain from it.

  4. Nick Nemec 2018-03-04 21:15

    Thanks a lot Donald. My son-in-law and I are in the process of building new corrals and your hissy fit just jacked up the price we will have to pay for gates and continuous fence panels.

  5. John 2018-03-05 07:00

    Let the farmers get what they voted for. They should receive it hard and often. Someday they’ll vote for folks who lookout for their interest.

  6. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-03-05 08:32

    New corrals! Fence panels! Good point, Nick! Let us know what price differences you see at the supply store.

    Say, what are all those grain bins made of?

  7. jerry 2018-03-05 08:50

    No matter what, we can count on our three in Washington to do absolutely nothing to change this. trump’s trade wars will only enhance China, a pretty good plan for him as China can then bail out his crooked daughter and son in law’s real estate bust. 100 years ago, we did that isolationist thingy, did not work out to good for us. Turns out that President Obama was right about trade and right about the TPP, but what the hell, he was Black, so trump went the other way.

    If ag producers fell bad about steel and aluminum tariffs, wait until NAFTA rolls forward. We always have this though, coming from the three failures in Washington we elected, “Thune said. “We’re very concerned”” No matter what, you can count on this same verbiage each time from one of the three or even all of them at the same time, while doing not a damn thing. Kind of like thoughts and prayers.

  8. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-05 09:02

    Wouldn’t the price of guns increase if steel prices increase? You’d think there would be a constituency that would oppose that.

  9. jerry 2018-03-05 09:11

    Cory and Mr. Nemec, to answer your questions about how the rich view the tariff’s on steel and aluminum, I give you the Secretary of Commerce to explain.

    “The Commerce Secretary said on CNBC Friday that any price increases related to the new tariffs would be very, very small, and held up a can of Campbell’s Soup to make his point.

    “In the can of Campbell’s soup, there’s about 2.6 cents — 2.6 pennies — worth of steel. So if that goes up by 25%, that’s about six-tenths of one cent on the price of the can of Campbell’s soup,” he said.

    Ross continued: “I just bought this can today at a 7-Eleven … and the price was $1.99. So who in the world is going to be too bothered by six-tenths of a cent?””

    So, you can take the new corrals and weigh them to see how they compare with a can of soup to get an idea of cost increases now. Before you buy a panel, weigh it so you can do the math with a can of soup. That would apply to grain bins as well. There has to be a formula for that, what say you Doctor McTaggart, what would the equation so ag folks will know just how much of a screwing NOem, Thune and Rounds are giving them?

    For all of you beer drinkers, Wilbur has your back on that as well as you listen to his blather. One thing is for certain, all of these billionaires did not get where they are by work, they got where they are by corruption as they are clueless in the business world.

  10. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-05 09:36

    The problem is that they wouldn’t add on a fraction of a cent. Impossible to do. You would add on at least a cent, plus all those other multipliers for transferring products and monies around. It would also look bigger because there are other costs of business that would be passed along at the same time.

    But a trade war would hurt agriculture….American products would have less access to the needs of a growing population.

    They should revise any tariff toward bad actors at the end of the day, not everybody. However, Trump may want to use it as a hammer for NAFTA negotiations.

    It would be better to help modernize American steel and aluminum-related manufacturing, or find new uses of domestic steel/aluminum, or support the development of advanced materials that use steel and aluminum.

    Every time they talk about fractions of a cent on a soup can or a beer can, I think of Superman III or Office Space where they captured fractions of cents and put them into another account ;^).

  11. Loren 2018-03-05 10:03

    Jerry, I think you are on to something. We can make new cars and corral gates, etc. out of SOUP CANS. We will hardly notice the increased costs. Good ol’ ‘Merikan ingenuity! ;-)

  12. jerry 2018-03-05 11:55

    Doc, Ak-47’s are now made in Florida under the Russian’s ownership. We will always have plenty of guns that are immune to steel and aluminum tariffs. We may not be able to sell wheat or corn, but we can damn sure shoot at our neighbors just for kicks and giggles.

    Regarding that though, the only other country that is getting off the hook is China. China and Russia have floated loans and money laundering to trump and his family for years. China is now being courted to bail out trump’s crooked son in law, the same dude that cannot get a security clearance. NOem, Thune, Rounds and trump could give a care about farmers and ranchers, this is about lining their personal pockets just like trump adviser Carl Icahn just did by dumping stock.

    “Most of the unfair trading that’s going on in steel and aluminum is emanating from China, and this action does very little, if anything, to affect China. So instead, we’re hitting our closest allies and partners with a set of tariffs under the justification of national security, while the administration is making it more difficult for those allies and partners to work with us jointly to put pressure on China to reduce its excess capacity. We’re the ones who now look internationally isolated as opposed to the Chinese, which is where the attention of the global economy should be, because that’s where the distorting policies are taking place.” Being played like an old fiddle.

    If the ag economy likes to spend more on less, then they are gonna love this new NAFTA that NOem, Thune,Rounds and trump are getting ready to lay on ya. These 4 horsemen are driving markets from you guys right into the arms of those that have been preparing for that day since November of 2016. Crops are in already.

  13. o 2018-03-05 17:10

    I have to admit that deep down I have some sympathy for this position. It was “free-trade” that allowed the devaluation of American labor and was a large contribution to the destruction of the middle-class. I’m not celebrating lower costs that lead to the exploitation of lower-cost foreign labor forces.

    Does this trade war saber rattling revive the “country of origin” labeling discussion? In for a penny; in for a pound?

  14. jerry 2018-03-05 17:30

    Panama just booted the trumpster out. Here is a video of them removing his name from the hotel

    Not only did the United States ambassador to Panama tell trump where he could stick the job, but the hotel that he was laundering booted him as well. Life is funny like that. Even Paul Ryan has finally found some spine, we will see how many days that lasts. With the deal in Panama, there is no doubt that will not turn around.

  15. leslie 2018-03-05 18:34

    John, I like it, but prolly like this;

    Lumpen Proletariat
    Feb 21 · 01:59:29 PM
    Bernie supporters, thank you for giving us Trump. Stay home and don’t vote, which is what you did the last time.
    Don’t like the Dems, join the Greens or the GOP and STFU.

    prolly not helpful…. :)

  16. Nick Nemec 2018-03-05 19:02

    This might turn out like nearly everything else Trump says. All talk no action. The guy has a serious problem with following through.

  17. jerry 2018-03-05 23:00

    Correct about the talk Mr. Nemec. Every time trump talks though, the stock market drops like an anvil and then, someone in power talks again and the market soars. It almost looks like insiders are in on the fix. These 500 point mood swings are getting way to common, market volatility, sure thing. Kind of curious that a trump adviser would just happen to dump metal stock just ahead of a tariff announcement raking in a cool 30 million of someone’s pension fund.

  18. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2018-03-06 06:43

    I can see what O is saying. Trump seems to be closer to Bernie Sanders in opposition to free trade. I certainly wouldn’t mind seeing America reinvigorating its manufacturing base. Part of the motivation for tariffs (outside of Trump’s desire for diversionary conflicts and chaos to keep people from starting to chant, “Lock Him Up!”) is national security: if we don’t make more of our own stuff, we could have trouble building tanks and planes to fight a serious war.

    Then again, how necessary is it that we maintain a constant total-war footing?

  19. jerry 2018-03-06 10:08

    Most of the stuff we do not make in the United States was sent out of country for a reason, those products pollute the water and the air. With an EPA that helped to protect American drinking water and the air we breathe, we shuffled that off to third world countries to make them great again. Good news though, our EPA is getting ransacked and destroyed! So we can make America Great Again by bringing back the production of lets say denim for starters. See how well that is going in China and India’s water and air. Go down the list of items sent overseas for production to see that instead of finding new safer products, we stick with the old as long as it is make someplace else..and then we buy it and act like we are the conservators of Mother Earth. We have some much throw away clothing that even Africa does not want it anymore. China does not want our discarded metal, so we cannot use that place as a dump anymore. A real smart feller had figured out how to make use of old discarded computers until the manufacturers put him in jail for copyright infringement. So have free trade, but also have responsible free trade.

    “China has been researching the potential impact of trade measures on soybeans imported from the US for more than a year, according to Burke.

    Soybean curbs would directly affect farmers in Midwestern US states that voted for Trump’s election and that he needs to win re-election in 2020. All but two of the top 10 producing soybean states — Illinois and Minnesota — voted for Trump. If he follows through on his threats against China and imposes tariffs and quotas, farmers may abandon him.

    John Heisdorffer, Iowa soybean farmer and president of the American Soybean Association (ASA) — the national lobbying arm for soybean farmers — said that he met with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last summer while Commerce was preparing its tariff recommendations. He said he told Ross a tariff was a bad idea.”

    Trade deficits do not matter, people matter. We have full employment, so what is the point of bringing back steel and aluminum manufacturing? What would we gain in the big picture. We all need to face the fact that in a nuke war, a tank or some such war machine will do little good. Medicine and a healthy populace will make a better solution than making more war machines. We already have all the AR15’s and AK47’s we could ever need, all made right here in the USA.

    Deficits do not matter a hill of beans, people matter. Keep the trade doors open or re-read world history back almost exactly 100 years ago to see what isolation accomplishes. Between bullets, bombs and the Spanish Flu, tens of millions of people died unnatural deaths. 80 million in World War II as a direct result of World War I, which killed about the same amount counting the Spanish Flu. Why do we want to step backwards, America has always been about forward thinking, what is happening?

  20. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-06 10:33

    The battery revolution has more to worry about than steel or aluminum.

    “Large manufacturers of battery based products from cell phone producers to automotive manufacturers are in increasing need for this finite resource. ”

    “The trouble with cobalt is that most of it comes from The Democratic Republic of The Congo, a country torn by a long-running civil war. This turmoil means that mining cobalt is often very dangerous and subject to supply disruptions that can result in spiraling prices. ”

    “In particular, rare earths are used in the design of high-power magnets found in electric motors for cars, vacuums, wind turbines and other machines. About 30 percent of the elements used in such magnets are rare-earth elements, Toyota said.

    China began seizing control of the market in rare earths in the mid-1980s, and many experts today estimate that China controls anywhere from 90 to 95 percent of the supply of rare earths.”

  21. mike from iowa 2018-03-06 11:17

    Amnesty Int’l reports children as young as four years old are forced to mine cobalt in DRC.

  22. o 2018-03-06 12:32

    Cory, more than a national security issue, this is a basic economic issue. We have to take a national stand that we value putting money back into the pockets of the middle-class (our manufacturing workers) and out of the pockets of the investor/owner class. This is about the reverse income disparity from the wealth grab of the 1% in the US.

    Clinton/s was/were WRONG on this issue – as are current corporate democrats. The Democrat party will not succeed until it voices its core values on this issue and separates from the GOP (and the corporate powers). It is (long past) time for a US labor party movement.

  23. o 2018-03-06 12:38

    Not taxing products from foreign countries is the same as subsidizing their exploitation of labor and environment – things we ought to be protecting – things that come at a cost.

  24. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-06 12:58


    It looks like cobalt carbonate is a by-product of cobalt extraction from mining, not a primary or natural source of the cobalt.

  25. jerry 2018-03-06 14:37

    Thanks Doc, would it be possible to manufacture cobalt from existing by-products without unintended consequences?
    I am thinking of middle class jobs that could be associated with this. We all talk about them, but what are they? The governor seems to think that a $20.00 an hour wage is a reasonable assumption for middle class job classification and exampled welding, as I remember. I am inclined to believe in that equation, if there are health/dental/disability benefits along with a real expectation of pensions.

  26. Clyde 2018-03-06 16:10

    Wow o! I agree. Way too many people have bought into the “Free trade will set you Free” mantra that we have had shoved down our throats for at least the last thirty some years. I am as far from a Trump supporter as you can get but a few tariffs I don’t think will hurt us and IMO should have been done across the board decades ago. A few things that contributors to this discussion ought to consider though. I believe that the only steel manufacturer that we have left in this country is right across our border in Norfolk Nebraska. Nucor….they exist because once upon a time Nebraska was somewhat socialistic. NPP Nebraska Public Power supplied Nucor and Sioux City Foundry with dirt cheap energy. Since Nucor only melts scrap from mostly old farm machinery of which there is an abundance since the country has declared war on agriculture their material cost is low as well.
    On the subject of ag exports we need to take a look at that as well. Check into the price of shipping a bushel of corn across the Pacific? Absolutely not worth doing. The Chinese have shown a far greater intelligence than the idiots we have had making our trade policy for those thirty plus years. When we normalized relations with China the first thing they wanted to buy from us was our seed technology…..not out grain. China has for decades shown they are more than willing to buy US but not our production. As of right now the Midwestern farmer is dealing with government farm policy that is only interested in keeping us producing feed grains at very near to
    break even to feed Chinese owned hogs.

  27. mike from iowa 2018-03-06 16:16

    I’m not sure you could ever prove that China paid the proper owners of US technology for that technology.

    Rumours have swirled for just about forever about the Israelis selling China US purloined secrets, especially military stuff. O, of course, cannot prove this.

  28. mike from iowa 2018-03-06 16:18

    No offense to O. I meant I could not prove this.

  29. jerry 2018-03-06 18:51

    Well boys, we’re gonna slap the spurs to old workhorse then and see what happens. Gary Cohn just put in his notice to resign. I know, what does that matter? If you all like protectionism, then away we go. I only wish that we still printed encyclopedia’s to sell to one another, as net neutrality is heading into the wind soon as well. Fun times.

  30. Jason 2018-03-07 07:24

    Here’s a fun fact:

    Japan currently has a 55% tariff on frozen beef from the U.S. yet ask for exclusion on steel imports to the U.S.

  31. Jason 2018-03-07 12:42

    Even Hillary wasn’t for TPP, so don’t be blaming Trump for what Japan did.

  32. jerry 2018-03-07 12:54

    President Obama was for the TPP and he was the President. Get your head out and then you will know that Hillary is not the president, the dotard trump is. You want to blame someone for the trump tariff, go call NOem, Thune, Rounds, Krebs and Opie, they all support him in lockstep.
    Nope, the pain of the tariff’s will fall directly onto you and yours. Suck it up while telling ranchers that Hillary was against the TPP, I’m sure they think she is president right now.

  33. Roger Cornelius 2018-03-07 13:18

    Hillary didn’t support TPP? Oh my, whatever will we do?

  34. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-07 13:56


    Recycling of elements like cobalt from materials and devices and from different waste streams will need to be part of the strategy moving forward. That could certainly include cobalt from unused cobalt carbonate.

    All of that will certainly need engineering to increase the amount captured and reduce environmental impacts. There is your STEM impact.

    For example, a lot of the extraction from mining wastes and recycling streams can be done with chemical leaching, but other methods in green chemistry and environmental engineering would be preferable.

    Essentially, you need some combination of better chemical separation methods and the availability of a lot of heat to get the chemistry going in the right direction. The former will take more time, and the latter will take a lot of energy.

  35. jerry 2018-03-07 17:09

    The tariffs that the regime has discussed will not materialize. Wall Street has spoken. So now we have to pick up the pieces of what our dotard in chief has tweeted and move on. So then, what about the existing trade agreements like NAFTA? How will NOem, Thune, Rounds, Stormy family values Krebs and Opie react to them? Will we revisit the TPP and put some sanity back into the game or will we lay idle while China continues to drink our trade milkshake?

  36. jerry 2018-03-07 17:30

    Senator Graham said that trump writes things on Tuesday and then changes his mind on Thursday. Here we are seeing the same thing regarding tariff’s. trump talks tough one day and then has to walk it back when everyone realizes how fraudulent he is. He will never be able to make a peace deal with anyone or a new trade deal with significance because he does not have anyone who knows what the hell they are doing there. The only thing they know is to steal from us and by golly, they are doing one hell of a job in that. No wonder Krebs and Opie are all in with trump, they know there are riches to be had by not doing anything. Ask NOem, she knows it very well.

  37. Jason 2018-03-07 19:34


    Why are labor unions against TPP?

  38. jerry 2018-03-07 19:49

    So you are really trying to say that dotard loves him some unions? If that is so, why doesn’t he hire American at his resorts?

  39. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 19:52

    I don’t agree with Trump’s tariffs myself. It will not succeed in bringing industry back into PA and WV. It will cost Americans more in prices of steel. This is a reaction to what has been historically unfair trade practices against the US. We have never been on a level playing field with other nations and that is not right. Tariffs is just another form of taxation. What we need is fair trade in all markets on a one for one basis.

  40. Roger Cornelius 2018-03-07 20:00


    Why are labor unions against TPP?

  41. Jason 2018-03-07 20:06


    I asked Jerry first. I am still waiting for him to answer.

    Maybe you can answer for him?

  42. jerry 2018-03-07 20:09

    dotard trump is out to kill the unions, through the Supreme Court. Teacher unions just won a wage increase in West Virginia and are looking to Oklahoma and Arizona next. So that another reason why trump is against the unions.

    Regarding the TPP, “While they were critical of the TPP overall, labor groups also saw the treaty as an opportunity to pressure US trading partners to adopt stronger protections for workers’ rights. During the negotiating process, labor groups said that trade liberalization without strong labor standards puts American workers at a competitive disadvantage.”

    NAFTA had sent jobs overseas for sure, but it also made agriculture important again with grain sales as well as milk and dairy to Mexico. There were more jobs created with NAFTA in the United States than were lost. In fact, look at the employment numbers now going back to when it was first initated.

    The problem is that it is too successful. The closer you get to full employent, the more workers want in return for the jobs they perform. My youngest got a hiring bonus as a high schooler from Burger King. That is what happens when everyone is working, employers have to raise wages. When they raise wages, they have to bring money back from the Caymans. They are only gonna suffer for a year though as the tax scam will sunset for workers and they will realize the screwing they just got.

  43. jerry 2018-03-07 20:16

    trumps tariffs will never see the light of day. What trade deals are you speaking of Mr. Boswell that are unfair to the United States? In the whole of NAFTA as an example, how is the playing field unfair?

  44. jerry 2018-03-07 20:58

    “Canada’s biggest private-sector union said NAFTA should be scrapped if Mexico cannot agree to better labor standards, clashing with Mexican business leaders who argued that workers rights were a matter for each country to resolve internally.

    Mexican political and corporate leaders firmly resist demands to bring wages into line with U.S. and Canadian levels, arguing the big cost advantage the country enjoys over richer peers should decrease as economic development advances.”

    I agree, NAFTA has hurt Mexican workers and Mexican agriculture. But it has not hurt American jobs, it has kept America competitive at the expense of Mexican workers. Mexican workers are guaranteed 80 pesos a day, trained experienced Mexican workers get 3 times that much a day…the equivance of about $13.00 per DAY. The average pay for American workers is about $18.00 per hour or $144.00 per day. Quite a difference, so how is that hurting American workers?
    Auto workers in Mexico less than $6.00 per hour with no benefits, American auto workers $28.00 per hour with strong benefits. Again, how is NAFTA hurting American auto workers?

  45. jerry 2018-03-07 21:02

    Slate article written on February 27, 2018 on the Supreme Court killing unions,

    “On Monday, the Supreme Court listened to arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a controversial and divided case that could potentially ruin public-sector unions — including many progressive bastions and common Democratic Party allies, plus unions representing groups like police officers and firefighters. The justices appeared split down ideological lines, leaving one silent wildcard, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch — who was appointed by Donald Trump to succeed Antonin Scalia. The Supreme Court currently has a 5-4 conservative majority, and Gorsuch is expected to make the swing vote in the case.

    Supreme Court Justices appeared torn over a 1977 Supreme Court opinion, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, that says non-members of public sector unions are still required to pay for union dues, though do not have to pay for the portion of the dues that goes to political activities. Conservative anti-union critics want to overturn the nearly 41-year-old opinion, which would turn the public sector into an open shop — also known as “right-to-work,” meaning those in the public sector who don’t pay fees would still receive the benefits of being in a union, thus diluting the union’s ability to sustain itself.”

    Jason, you can dummy up as much as you like, but here is how the Supreme Court will kill labor unions in the United States. We already see that here in South Dakota with the “right to work” laws that are just wage killers and union killers as well.

  46. jerry 2018-03-07 23:08

    Agreed Mr. Boswell, Mexico suffered the most loss of all. When we speak of American wages, we tend to forget that there is a reason Mexicans have come north of the border to do our hard labor work, we took all of their’s.

    So, we are back to how did NAFTA hurt the American worker and who really gained? Sure as hell was not Mexico. It is easy then to paint them as takers then because we all know that folks with a hue are not to be trusted. Here is something about farmers there in Mexico, corn farmers to be more exact,

    “Mexico lost over 900,000 farming jobs in the first decade of NAFTA, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture.

    Mendoza says her small town of Santa Ana Zegache is now inhabited mostly by women and the elderly because working-age men went to the United States looking for jobs — the vast majority crossing over illegally.

    NAFTA opened the Mexican market to U.S. corn producers who were subsidized by the U.S. government.

    That led to a boom in U.S. corn exports to Mexico — and a bust in Mexican farming jobs like Benancio’s. In the first decade of NAFTA, U.S. corn exports to Mexico quadrupled while Mexican corn prices fell 66%, according to Tufts University professor Tim A. Wise, a trade expert.

    The U.S. is the world’s number one producer and exporter of corn – and Mexico is its number one export market.

    Indeed, some of NAFTA’s biggest winners were U.S. farmers.”

    So there you go. Here in South Dakota as well as other grain producing states, they voted for trump because he told them that they were getting screwed by the Mexicans with corn pricing and that the Mexicans were all outlaws and unworthy of NAFTA. Now that the light is being shown on how tariff’s and subsidies work, do South Dakota grain producers still think that Mexicans are “ripping them off”? Thune kind of came out to say that was not true, but not really. The rest of the bunch, pretty quiet on that subject. Best to let their leader bleat the hate and have them quietly applaud the fraud from the sidelines.

  47. Jason 2018-03-07 23:13

    Some U.S. steel and aluminum makers are restarting idle mills and boosting capacity to make up for imports that face being priced out of the market if President Donald Trump’s proposed import tariffs take hold.

    United States Steel Corp. X 2.60% on Wednesday said it would fire up a blast furnace in Granite City, Ill., and call back 500 workers. Century Aluminum Co. CENX 3.91% said last week it will restart lines at a smelter in Kentucky that have been curtailed since 2015, doubling its workforce there to 600.

    “Our Granite City Works facility and employees…have suffered too long from the unending waves of unfairly traded steel products that have flooded U.S. markets,” U.S. Steel Chief Executive David Burritt said. The company had idled the furnaces and laid off hundreds of workers in 2015 as a flood of cheap imports pushed down domestic prices.

    U.S. Steel shares rose 2.6% Wednesday to $45.69, making for a 28% increase in the past 12 months.

    American steel and aluminum makers could still lose out to foreign competitors if they can’t make enough metal to meet demand, even at higher prices. Producers have struggled for years to compete with foreign mills, particularly in China, that ramped up production at lower prices.

    I will gladly pay more if it goes to an American worker. Will you Jerry?

  48. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:20

    LMAO Of course US Steel will put out more they can increase the price of their steel by 23% and still beat imports. That is not the free enterprise system. Are you really going to fool yourself believe that any new steel jobs will go to Labor Unions. Many US Steel manufacturers went to right to work states. This is from Republican Sources. Ponder on that. Tariffs is like taking your tax breaks back It will cause less exports as those other markets will start tariffs of their own. If US Steel wants to compete in the Market, they need to find a way to make more steel at a lower cost.

  49. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:23

    NAFTA didn’t deliver all it promised, but Mexico got more manufacturing jobs and more investments. Electronics and Auto Manufacturing increased in Mexico Obviously due to lower labor. Like India, China, and Far East, Mexico took on our large capacity electronic manufacturing. They don’t deal with limits put on by the EPA.

  50. Jason 2018-03-07 23:27


    It doesn’t matter if an American worker is in a union or not.

    What matters is that it is an American worker and not a foreign worker.

  51. Jason 2018-03-07 23:28

    What is sad is some people are putting politics over American jobs.

  52. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:29

    If in a Tariff situation you may gain in one place and lose in another. If I am China I may put a tariff on pork, beef, and grain.

  53. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:32

    Jason it is not politics it is basic to the free enterprise system. US Steel wants to go they need to figure out how to make the widget cheaper and more efficient. That’s how all business work.

  54. Jason 2018-03-07 23:32

    Then the USA makes the Iphones in America.

    You guys do know that China wasn’t in the TPP right?

  55. Jason 2018-03-07 23:33

    I wasn’t referring to you MIchael about the politics. It was the other posters.

  56. jerry 2018-03-07 23:41

    Mr. Boswell, that is so correct. NAFTA has destroyed Mexico’s air, water and land with total disregard for what is being expelled. Thanks to Richard M. Nixon, we developed an EPA that started to clean up our soil, water and air, hey you can actually eat shellfish out of the Chesapeak Bay now. We got the wake up call when the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, caught on fire. Now that is quite a feat when you can have water burn. So then what happened was we did what we do best, we sent those chemical producing jobs and factories to… Mexico, in the NAFTA deal, and to China and India, textiles like denim. Man you should see how that stuff pollutes. Good news though, you won’t see it here because we dumped it on somebody else thanks to the EPA.

    So then Jason, about those American jobs, want to bring them back here? How about putting them right in your neighborhood? Should increase the value of your property right quick like. Keep in mind that trump is dismantling the EPA, so you can have that dream of fire water, right in your own back yard. Call it the Love Canal..oh wait..that one is taken as a superfund.

  57. Jason 2018-03-07 23:44

    What has Trump done to hurt the environment? Be specific Jerry. I will bet you can’t name a credible fact that he is destroying the environment.

  58. jerry 2018-03-07 23:45

    China had set its own course, of course. One Belt One Road. I don’t think anyone said that they thought China was involved in the TPP, must be those voices in your melon Jason.

  59. jerry 2018-03-07 23:46

    Bears Ears for starters. Drilling off the coasts of the United States…except Florida, imagine that.

  60. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:49

    But Jerry at what cost? Other than the most complex micro processors. Nothing but less than 10000 units are built in the US anymore. Could we still have cleaned up the US and maintained our industries. I think we could have. The EPA used (abused) its position and basically force most electronic assembly out of the US. Almost all small IC and PCB production is imported. That is a true National Security issue. WE are cleaner now but at what cost. Areas of Detroit a ghost town. Ecological Extremism has cost this Nation a lot. What is needed is clearer head and balanced control.

  61. Jason 2018-03-07 23:51

    Drilling for oil doesn’t hurt the environment. You do know that it is a part of nature right?

    You do know oil seeps to the surface right?

  62. jerry 2018-03-07 23:52

    IParis? Specific enough? I know that you do have problems reading Jason, but I will send you this link from the Gaurdian on what your dotard boy is up to.

    “A campaign stump pledge by Trump to scrap the EPA in its entirety was “an aspirational goal” that would be best achieved by incremental demolition rather than an executive order, according to Ebell.

    “To abolish an agency requires not only thought but time because you have to decide what to do with certain functions that Congress has assigned to that agency,” he said.

    “President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA or ‘leave a little bit’. It is a goal he has and sometimes it takes a long time to achieve goals. You can’t abolish the EPA by waving a magic wand.” There ya go, right straight from the dotard’s own pursed lips.

  63. Michael Boswell 2018-03-07 23:54

    LOL Jason you can’t argue that Pelosi said Natural Gas isn’t a fossil fuel. We are going to regulate out big coal in favor of smaller Natural Gas fired plants. Natural Gas is a by product of Oil Exploration, but heaven forbid if we pipe that oil. But pipe natural gas (more explosive) no problem. Ecological Extremist can’t see past their next topic of interest and careless about the consequences to the US or how much it costs the average person.

  64. Jason 2018-03-07 23:56

    Paris accord? LOL.

  65. jerry 2018-03-08 00:02

    Mr. Boswell, the cost? I am not sure if you saw the pictures of the American sailors that are on a Port of Call in Vietnam right now. They visited a place where the effects of dixoin from Agent Orange still linger and still produce birth defects. That outlaw bunch at the EPA put an end to its free use in the United States

    The people who make these conductors and Ipads in China, do we really want this In fact, do we really want it anywhere? Maybe we should take a step back and work on ways that make sense not only now, but for the next bunch of humans that will follow us.

  66. Jason 2018-03-08 00:03

    I am guessing Jerry doesn’t understand that the highest percentage of electricity that powers electric cars comes from oil. Second is coal and natural gas.

    Sorry Jerry, there is no electricity tree in nature.

    The EPA abused its power and now it’s time for them to pay the price.

  67. Michael Boswell 2018-03-08 00:06

    Did I say I wanted that here, but is there a way to produce IPads here and still be have it be clean. I think that’s the point. Don’t restrict just for the sake of restricting. Give an opportunity and guide industry to make cleaner ways of doing things. Don’t restrict them to the point where they can’t make a profit. If they can make a profit in the US they will do it elsewhere.

  68. Jason 2018-03-08 00:09

    BTW Jerry,

    You don’t need the EPA to ban bad chemicals. Congress can do that by themselves.

  69. Jason 2018-03-08 00:09

    So back to square one.

    Trump hasn’t done one thing to hurt the environment.

  70. jerry 2018-03-08 01:16

    That is exactly what we have been seeing though Mr. Boswell, the moving of production off shore. We could obviously do manufacturing if the government would subsidize that production. That is what it would take as China can put those Ipads out in short order and we cannot…unless the government helps out.

    We see that in many ways now and we will be seeing that more in the future with jobs such as slaughter houses. We are moving immigrants away from those jobs that we moved from Detroit and the rest of the population centers because of wage costs for workers. We found that it was much cheaper to move the process to the feed lots to process the meat as a money saver. The problem is that the areas of these slaughter houses are rural and cannot man the need there. So we had immigrants until these places were raided. Now what? It takes special strong willed and able bodied people to man that chain. Even with higher wages, they cannot keep the pace of the chain.

    Take a look at Aberdeen and the promise of 5,000 kill a day with the EB5 fiasco. Never happened and never will, unless immigrants are brought in along with somehow finding livestock to render. Trade deals suck, I don’t think there is an argument in that. Maybe the thought should be to clean up our environment instead of polluting it more. There could be a lot of employment regarding that kind of infrastructure. Where have I heard that word infrastructure before? Certainly not lately or even seriously. But that is where the work will be, robots are laying brick now as well as working on cars. We better figure out something for us to do…

  71. Michael Boswell 2018-03-08 07:32

    Actual the Chinese Government Siphons off profits from companies that moved there like Wurth Electronics, Apple, Daktronics, and others. Those man made island in the South China Seas paid for by consumers in the West. It is really a National Security issue when almost all of your electronic devices come from a foe. But then China adopted a modified free enterprise system. EB5 investments had to be made in risky ventures. It is part of EB5 charter. The Aberdeen processing plant was no guaranteed process. It was more than unfortunate that so much investment was lost, but that happens when you invest in an at risk venture.

  72. jerry 2018-03-08 08:48

    Mr. Boswell, those pesky Chinese and their investments to build artifial islands in disputed waters, are also hiring American workers in plants that have been abandoned.

    “First, the sheer size of the investment, the largest Chinese investment in Ohio history. Fuyao has invested about $600 million in a former General Motors plant about 10 minutes south of downtown Dayton. It has sunk some $1 billion total across the United States, in facilities in Illinois, Michigan and South Carolina.

    The move might be big enough to discourage similar moves by competitors, said James Browning, president of Auto Glass Digest and a former Fuyao technical consultant.

    “Fuyao has come in at such a large scale, that it would certainly be tough for someone to come in and compete with that,” Browning said. “That doesn’t mean people won’t try. But what they’re doing is special.”

    Second, the investment is in a wholly new company, not an existing business, which typically Chinese companies have sought when exploring American investments.

    Chinese companies were expected to invest $20 billion to $30 billion in the U.S. in 2016, mainly through buying existing businesses, the Wall Street Journal reported this year. That compares to a record $15 billion in 2015 and nearly $12 billion in 2014, the year Fuyao started refurbishing the Moraine plant.

    “The GM (General Motors) factory was closed,” Orlins said. “Effectively, they are building a new factory.”

    Mr. Boswell, the United States produces, right here, more than half of the semiconductor manufacturing in the world.

    How is the Deadwood Grand, funded by EB5, a risky venture? The EB5 beef plant was done with failure in mind. This was not about something that was even feasible from day one. The original plan of much less than the kill scam, may have been workable, but in the end the EB5 beef plant was a scam that not only ripped off the taxpayers of South Dakota, it got a man murdered.

  73. Robert McTaggart 2018-03-08 09:09

    Oil and coal are both natural, but we are not going to run an economy off of the oil that seeps to the surface. Extracting what we need when we need it has different impacts than just letting it seep.

    Today natural gas fills in the gaps when wind and solar are not available or not enough. Said natural gas needs to be delivered by pipelines…which use steel…which would be impacted by a tariff. The utilities and gas suppliers will be happy to pass along those costs to the consumer.

    In general, the infrastructure for energy will become more expensive, including for wind and solar, as all sectors require a lot of steel and aluminum.

  74. Daniel Buresh 2018-03-08 10:05

    Jason is happy that we will sacrifice 4 jobs to bring back 1 steel worker’s job. I guess if we want to see how trump is hurting the environment, we just have to look to coal country where he removed Obama regulations that allowed mines to dump waste. Here is a stream in WV yesterday. I hope all you Trumpsters go down and get a big ol glass of freedom and gulp it down.

    Let’s see where else he has harmed the environment:
    Trump reversed ban on pesticide that causes brain damage in children after receiving a million dollar payment from Dow Chemicals:
    Trump cancelled a ban on disposable plastic water bottles in National Parks:
    Oil was the reason Bears Ears was made smaller:
    Here is a full list that National Geographic is maintaining to show what the Trump admin is doing to the environment:

  75. jerry 2018-03-08 16:06

    Great links Mr. Buresh, of course Jason will not read them, but the rest of us will and thank you for them.

    Of note, today, trump released his tariff..strike that..extortion demands. Wall Street is loving it as it means absolutely nothing. So those 3 guys and Punxsutawney Phil, will just have to wait to see their shadow as trump just threw shade once again with his lies. He will do damn near anything to change the subject of Stormy Daniels and that pimp dude from Moscow, Putin.

  76. Michael Boswell 2018-03-08 17:14

    Semi conductors are only one part of the electronics manufacturing. You have PCBs, Magnetics, and LEDS, and much more.

    I only said that EB-5 was chartered with “at risk” development for foreign investors. It gave them an avenue to live in the US. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

  77. jerry 2018-03-08 19:33

    Mike Rounds says this about the EPA, he hates it. If this doesn’t make you want to start drinking wine, then nothing will. Our water is about to be flushable and that is all. So Mr. Boswell, I am guessing that we can now start polluting even more with the list you provided. Add animal waste and chemical dumps in the ground water and you have a cocktail of love. This is good news to China though, it will give them the opportunity to clean up their enviornment and enjoy Chinese produce pork grown right here in America. Life is funny like that.

    Here’s Mikey.

    “Today, I had the opportunity to chair an Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee hearing on bipartisan legislation known as the FARM Act. I am an original cosponsor of this bill, which was introduced by Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) earlier this year, and which now has 33 bipartisan cosponsors. The FARM Act would protect farmers, ranchers and livestock markets from burdensome EPA reporting requirements for animal waste emissions. These requirements were not intended to affect animal agriculture and instead were meant to address dangerous industrial pollution, chemical plant explosions and the release of hazardous materials into the environment.”

  78. o 2018-03-08 20:26

    Help my memory on the FARM Act: wasn’t that the legislation that used farmers as a stalking horse to get regulations repealed not for the farmers who may-or-may-not really be policed by the EPA, but to get the WHOLE standard repealed so that the real polluting industries can go back to poisoning? Am I confusing this with the Noem “farm dust” controversy?

  79. jerry 2018-03-08 20:49

    Your memory serves you well o, the stalking horse always gets its gallop with these crooks and liars. With the dust bunny and dirty Mikey, a feller cannot get a break here in South Dakota. Soon, not even a glass of clear water.

  80. Jason 2018-03-09 07:10

    As a reminder, it all started in December 23, 2015 – which we said at the time was “the date the global trade wars officially began” because that’s when president Obama imposed a 266% tariff on Chinese cold-rolled steel imports which Beijing had been quietly dumping around the world, a consequence of China’s attempt to overstimulate its economy (capex, capex, capex) starting in 2014.


    Your own link says the science has not proved that Chlorpyrifos causes cancer yet you say it’s a fact.

    The ban on plastic water bottles was an idiotic ban. I’m guessing it was done by a democrat.

    Keep trying Daniel.

  81. Daniel Buresh 2018-03-09 08:28

    Can you point to where I said anything about cancer? I merely stated it causes brain damage in children. From your own link:

    “Some studies do suggest that chlorpyrifos exposure can lead to developmental issues in children, for example, but they’re correlational studies, meaning they don’t provide causal links. However, research in rodents has found causal links between chlorpyrifos and developmental issues.

    Other studies in human populations have failed to find correlations between chlorpyrifos and development issues in children, but that research may be suffering from what scientists call “confounding variables,” or unrelated factors that may be affecting the study’s results.

    In other words, some research does suggest chlorpyrifos poses a threat to human health, but the question is whether or not it’s enough to warrant a complete ban of the insecticide.

    The insecticide is “toxic” to birds and “extremely toxic” to fish, according to the National Institutes of Health. It’s also “extremely toxic” to non-target insects such as bees.

    Chlorpyrifos affects all of the above animals, along with humans and other mammals, in a similar way — by leading to the overstimulation of the nervous system.

    In fact, chlorpyrifos targets the same chemical pathway in the body as nerve agents such as sarin gas. Both chlorpyrifos and sarin belong to a class of chemicals called organophosphates, several of which have already been banned by the EPA.

    At high doses, nerve agents, chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates impact humans similarly, namely by causing a whole host of symptoms, including headache, nausea, dizziness and confusion. At very high doses, organophosphates can cause vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. And at ever higher doses, such as from spills or accidents, they can lead to death.”

    Sounds like it does cause issues but the debate is whether or not that warrants removal. Trump’s continual attempts to get rid of the EPA are going to backfire. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

  82. Clyde 2018-03-16 21:55

    All of these arguments seem pretty silly. Take a step back and look at things and I think you will agree that this country, like most of the world, is in a race to the bottom. The only country’s that stand to gain from what the 1/2% want is the country’s that are already at the bottom. They might gain an extra spoonful of rice in their bowl. Yes, tariff’s only hurt the purchaser here but if he hasn’t got an income to purchase anything….whats it matter? There is a fine line and IMO we should have enacted an across the board tariff on everything imported to counteract the actions of the 1/2% decades ago. We could be doing things that bode well for the future rather than enriching the 1/2%

  83. jerry 2018-03-22 11:11

    Maybe instead of corn and soybeans along with wheat and beef that pollute the watersheds, the farmers in those states could grow wind chargers and solar collectors thus making more money while rejuvenating the depleted lands. Also, hemp could would be a wonderful cash crop that would not use the chemicals that pollute as well to get rid of toxic cotton. This could be a great thing if done correctly regarding agriculture, but only if we can drag our fannies out of the 19th century.

    Ranchers could raise sustainable meats such as buffalo or yak to control quantities and pricing to keep the small ranchers profitable. China subsidizes, so we can subsidize even more for less. Oh, and get rid of milk for the most part, to exchange with those soybeans for soy milk. There, fixed it!

    Side note as well, refrigeration for milk. Don’t need it with soy milk. This way, you save a bundle on energy.

  84. jerry 2018-03-22 11:42

    Another plus to the China tariffs, Hobby Lobby will loose their stream of cheap crap. This bunch of women haters can go pound sand.

  85. mike from iowa 2018-03-23 12:19

    China announced targeted tariffs totaling 3 billion bucks- 15% tariff on various nuts and wine from California and if necessary 25 % tariffs on pork and other stuff.

    South Dakota farmers feeling targeted yet, or just hung out to blow in the wind known as bawlbaby Drumpf?

  86. jerry 2018-03-23 14:08

    Walmart is spooked about this as well. Only republicans could take a robust growing economy and toss it under the bus. Kind of reminds me of the last republican president and ding a ling republican congress doing the same thing. What can be expected though, this bunch is anti government, as Nelson and the Goofs. They will tell you the same thing.

  87. Roger Cornelius 2018-03-23 14:16

    Trump declares war on his base, all those low-income, uneducated Trump supporters will now have to pay higher prices at Walmart.

  88. jerry 2018-03-23 15:37

    Roger, the problem that I see is that many trump supporters are not so uneducated. They did graduate in many cases. What they are is ignorant of how trade actually works and how to balance a checkbook rather than using the ATM to see what your balance is. trump is on the same line, completely ignorant of trade and balances. A hint for him would be to maybe check out his own store to see how inventory ebbs and flows and how it relates to his credit line. Fat chance on that as he has gone bankrupt several times. How can you go broke running a gambling hall? Only trump could pull that off. Passing a trillion dollar tax cut does not pay the bills as it adds to the trillion dollars just hours ago, to just keep the doors open. So ignorance paves the way for this crowd of 37 percenters…and they love it.

    Someone (Fox and friends) told him that a trade war is a good thing to change the subject of Stormy Daniels and the women he has abused, so he went with it…Maybe. He will get even more ignorant as Sunday and 60 minutes gets ready to air. Stormy weather ahead for the ignorant.

  89. Clyde 2018-03-26 23:23

    I’d like to comment on a few inaccuracy’s I’ve noticed in this argument.
    1: Hillary was 100% in favor of the TPP till it looked like Bernie was getting lots of mileage out of opposing it. We would have gotten TPP with Hillary and we will get a look alike with the laughing stock we now have.
    2: NAFTA did in the Mexican farmer. An article I read in a farm magazine at the time stated that the number of folks that swam the river was almost exactly equivalent to the number of farmers in Mexico that were put out of business. At the same time we were doing in about 25% of the farmers in this country that were still in business after the big clean-out under that greatest of all Republican presidents Ronny Reagan. So how much were American farmers helped by NAFTA?
    3:From what I’ve read of TPP it didn’t include the Chinese and was designed to favor goods from country’s that would work for an even smaller bowl of rice than China. It also was designed to give our big multinational’s and banks even more power in a “World Court” that over rides our sovereignty. Lets talk about “Country of Origin” labeling. The American consumer and farmer fought for decades to get C of O labeling and when we finally got it the idea was completely thwarted by allowing the imports to list the product as being of….and/or US produced. That wasn’t good enough. The “World Court” ruled against us and all labeling was removed. That is the future under these trade deals.
    4: Are the Chinese really going to put a tariff on US pork when they are the largest producer of it? Smithfield Foods, folk’s, the largest vertically integrated pork producer in this country. I think the Chinese are far smarter than us in that regard. Driving down the price of the feed that goes into their hogs on the other hand is an excellent idea. IE; corn and soybean meal.

    I am sure not a fan of this joke we have for a president and I don’t believe any of the things he does are original to him. Trying to help out US workers by putting a tariff on steel and aluminum is just insane. As I mentioned, we should have put an across the board tariff on everything years ago. This tariff doesn’t make any sense. BTW if Trumpy wanted to make Mexico pay for his wall all he would have had to do was toss a tariff on everything coming into this country from Mexico. Oh, wait, that would have hurt our big multinational’s that have moved much of their manufacturing to Mexico…. No need for a wall now. The emigrants will be flocking back for better paying jobs than they can get here.

  90. jerry 2018-03-27 14:27

    “The United States and Canada have been selling tons of corn in Mexico for over a decade, thanks to NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement. It eliminated tariffs on most agricultural trade and was supposed to be a win-win for the United States and Mexico.

    For Alvares Correa, NAFTA has been a disaster. While the trade agreement opened up U.S. markets to Mexican corn farmers, they haven’t been able to sell any corn in America.

    Meanwhile, American farmers have flooded Mexico with cheap corn thanks to generous U.S. government subsidies — subsidies left unchecked by NAFTA. A U.S. corn grower receives an average annual subsidy of $20,000 a year. The Mexican government gives their farmers just $100.

    Farmers said that entire towns are emptying because thousands of small farms have gone out of business. As many as 2 million farm workers have lost their jobs — the vast majority headed north across the U.S. border looking for better pay.”

    Nothing inaccurate about what NAFTA has done to agriculture in Mexico and why Mexicans came north where the agriculture went. Should be glad they came so they can harvest and plant on such a meager salary.

    BTW, there is no tariff that will happen against anyone. Too complicated for this bunch when it is so much easier to make a comment and watch the stock market either go through the roof or below the basement. It is a money maker if you are an insider, as old Carl Ichan how it works.

  91. Clyde 2018-03-27 23:02

    Jerry, I have an issue with your figure of $20,000 subsidy to US farmers as opposed to the Mexican $100. The farm programs we have had in recent history may be costing the taxpayer $20K per farmer but the lions share of that is going to BIG INSURANCE to, supposedly, limit our risk’s.
    Also, as to Mexico having towns turning to ghost town’s, you had better look around you here in good ol So Dak! NAFTA and our farm programs haven’t just done in the Mexican farmer…..they have done in us! The GREAT and GLORIOUS free market dictates that you will have all out competition till there are so few left that they STOP competing. That’s the way the game works. We used to have a thing against monopolies but for most of the economy that doesn’t seem to be important anymore. The same will hold true for all of agriculture once you get enough of those pesky farmers off the land. It already does for the vertically integrated meat industry. Why do you suppose we are all producing close to break even now out here in So Dak. The grains we produce go mainly to the vertically integrated meat industry. They have the power…we don’t.
    Agree about the tariff….the scare drove down the grain prices and Chinese hogs benefited. ; )

  92. jerry 2018-03-28 00:29

    Clyde, the article that I quoted from was done in 2006. At that time, the subsidy was what was reported by CBS. You know as well as I know that the subsidy has increased from that 20 grand to a much higher figure.

    Regarding monopolies, we love them here in the US. The old lie about competition left the building decades ago. Capitalism cannot stand competition as they are not compatible. So then, what do you do. Well you keep putting Farm Bills in place that further erodes main street and enables larger operations to get larger and smaller operations to be purchased or forced to lease their ground. The integrated meat industry is all just make believe that has also left the building decades ago. Unless you are raising kosher or other specialty meat, don’t get to proud of your production. It is what it is. We started to lease our place some years ago. So the land is owned by us, and we get the honor of paying the taxes on it as well. I like to see the production on the place though as it reminds me of my grandparents and what little it took for them to make it work for them as far as machinery and the rest of the high dollar iron needed now to make a go of it.

    Now watch as things develope in the far east and you will see the head fake. The steel shuffle for automobiles that cannot pass the fuel efficency of South Korea. American auto’s whose quality still is secondary to the South Koreans, but forced to allow them for import with a gun to their head.

    Nothing about the best hard grass fed cattle in the world, I think are being fattened for a market that is far from here. We called it the white table cloth market for prime beef that should be labeled with a COOL branding so operators here could get the value of the beef produced instead of the packers raking it in. NOem, Thune, Rounds and Krebs are against that COOL, as it takes bribe money from their parlor games. There has to be change or it will just get worse than what it now is.

    So I drifted Clyde, but I still stand on what NAFTA has done to destroy the agriculture community of Mexico, as just another reason to come north to survive. Mexico is in a huge drug war caused by the United States as well. We grant political asylum to many people that come from war torn countries where famine and war take their toll. But we have changed from where we were and now we spend millions to send the ones who work back south.

  93. Clyde 2018-03-28 12:54

    Jerry, you and I are in agreement on most things and I have read and generally agreed with your posts in the past. I agree that NAFTA killed the Mexican farmer but I can’t agree that it did the US farmer any good. Yes, we got to sell lots of corn but what has been our profit margin on that corn? The fact that this country just keeps pushing farmers off the land ought to emphasize that there hasn’t been a huge profit to be made.
    We have had plenty of inflation since 2006 but in general I would say that we are not getting a bigger check than we did then. Farmers have done what they have done for decades though. The ones that could make a profit have bid land through the roof just to get bigger. Why not, I’ve been hearing “Get big or get out” since I was a kid.
    IMO, NAFTA did the US and Mexican farmer no good and trade deals since and in the work’s aren’t any good either.

  94. Clyde 2018-03-30 10:27

    One more short statement on this issue. NAFTA was written under Reagan and Bush who would have played holy h**l passing it but under a charismatic Clinton it sailed through. When Hillary and the corrupt national Democratic party decided she should run, memory’s of NAFTA by formerly prosperous US workers sure didn’t help her. Remember she lost to the worst leader that has ever been elected in this country.

  95. jerry 2018-03-30 12:01

    NAFTA proves that the US ag producer cannot stand on their own without subsidies, that is a given. NAFTA also proves that in order for it to work, Mexican farmers need to be subsidized as well. The sad fact is we have too much milk production that should never be, we have too much corn production that does not even go for food, it goes for subsidized ingredients in fuel. So we are in agreement then that NAFTA can only work if we all recognize the fact that in order for it to do so, all three members must be heavily subsidized.

    Given that, then why are we cutting back on feeding Americans? Why are we cutting back on feeding the hungry in Puerto Rico? Damn it, they ARE Americans. Okay, then why are we not using this food to feed the hungry world wide? Why are we jacking chemicals in the ground for more production when we are not using the production we have. If we had a sensible Farm Bill written by anyone other than an idiot like NOem and passed by double idiots called Thune and Rounds, we may be able to see a real sensible approach to keeping the small family farm and ranch in place.

    Regarding Clinton, look at the news. When you say crooked Clinton, I say Putin. I have more proof of Putin involvment in our crooked elections than you have with anything “crooked about Clinton” Remember, Clinton has been investigated since 1990. That is a long time and all they got was a stained dress on Monica and another stained dress on Linda Tripp..(Linda’s was a mustard stain combined with ketsup). That was it. The republicans wrote NAFTA and drove it through, Clinton signed it 25 years or so ago. No one wants to change it because we are getting Mexican workers building stuff for 4 bucks a day for a long days work without any kind of benefits.

  96. jerry 2018-03-30 12:57

    Speaking of lack of tariffs, the one to South Korea has been suspended now indefinitely. All smoke and mirrors. But still no russian sanctions. We kicked out 60 old spies and are welcoming 60 new ones. Musical chairs for the russkies.

  97. Clyde 2018-03-30 22:53

    Jerry, I like you, spent a lot of time just thinking while racing up and down the row’s trying to make a profit back in the 80’s. Those days all the talk from our glorious leaders was that the government was going to be getting out of “subsidizing” farmers. If you mull that over long enough you come up with the scenario. All that could happen would be that the means of overproduction would have to go to a value approaching zero until the overproduction ended. That would look something like this.
    1: The value of land would go to a very low figure….we definitely got a taste of that.
    2: Expensive inputs would go away. IE Fertilizer, hybrid seed, machinery.
    Then what would you have? Well, I would see lots more grazing rather than feed lot operations. I would see the big input company’s raising H. And I would see land taxes that fund schools and roads go away. As happened in the 30’s huge amounts of land would become property of the federal government.
    So after I mulled over these scenario’s I pretty much decided that the government would continue to subsidize farming. At least at a rate that would satisfy all the big money that would stand to lose if they didn’t. With all that subsidy what is their goal??? Maximum production for the lowest outlay. Not what would benefit rural America. And that is what we have and looks like we will continue to have.
    As to the Clinton’s I couldn’t help but notice what sure appeared to me to be a”pay for play” scenario in Hillary’s international dealings…..give the Saudi’s a big arms deal and the “Clinton Foundation” got a big contribution. The Clinton’s were worth hundreds of million’s and had never done anything except politic’s. In the last election I didn’t have the stomach to vote for either of the presidential candidates that I was allowed here in South Dakota and I passed on that part of the ballot.
    I also have never bought into the notion that the Russians were responsible for the jerk we ended up with. Its my understanding that their involvement amounted to a handful of bloggers on social media. As one media wag commented it was kinda funny that Russia knew to target Michigan and Wisconsin but the Democratic party did not! The fact is that we ended up with two of worst candidates the country could come up with. The one that won told lies that American’s wanted to believe were true! IE…No TPP, jobs coming back to the US and no more jobs leaving.

  98. Clyde 2018-03-30 23:49

    Again, a bit more on this and an apology for the way this farmer writes. I should review my use of paragraphs and sentence structure a bit better.
    Anyway, I believe that if a country is unwilling to subsidize agriculture all that you can expect farmers to be is “subsistence” farmers. I think that is the most efficient natural state. Country’s around the world not subsidizing there agriculture is what I take for evidence.
    If you were not subsidizing farmers I believe that the value of land would be virtually zero. I would think that any poor fool living in a city with every dime going to a slumlord would be more than happy to chuck it all and try his hand at living off the land. The whole face of society would change.
    Of course before that could happen some fat cats would buy up all the virtually worthless land and shut down agriculture production till the people were willing to pay them what ever they demanded!
    So, some form of subsidy for now doesn’t look so bad. Too bad we are headed for the land all being owned by a few fat cat’s anyway. Sad that America can’t recognize it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.