Governor Dennis Daugaard spoke live on KCCR Radio yesterday. AMong other topics, Governor Daugaard addressed the harm Donald Trump’s tariffs would do to South Dakota, not to mention Trump’s vote tally in rural America (scroll forward to about 23:30 in video):
When farmers are already struggling to be profitable in the face of very low commodity prices—very low soybean prices, very low pork prices—to have a tariff impair our ability to export to China is the last thing we need.
Now I know the market was initially responding with a very significant drop in the value of those commodities, and then as people thought about it, well, if China can’t get its pork and soybeans from the United States, they’re going to have to get it from say, Brazil, or some place like that, and the markets to which Brazilian soybeans and pork were selling, now maybe South Dakota or the United States can sell to. So the impact may not be as bad as it might seem initially.
Also I know the Administration is still talking with China, and there was some initial suspension, there’s the threat of a tariff on pork and soybeans, but it was not immediately imposed. and I believe it’s until May that this suspension was effective…
I do know that our Congressional delegation has been very vocal in their communication with the White House and the Trump Administration that this is not good for South Dakota or other farm states, and it could very well impair Trump’s support in the Midwest Farm Belt where he got a lot of support during the last election.
So he might be thinking about the big picture in terms of protecting the auto industry or other steel and aluminum users, but he’s also got to recognize that a lot of his support came from the Farm Belt, and if he wants to retain that support, he’s got to be attentive to free trade [Gov. Dennis Daugaard, live interview, KCCR Radio, 2018.04.19].
The Governor then adds this extemporaneous epistle to free trade:
I was also present when the European Union ambassador recently spoke in Sioux Falls about trade and the point he made is, you can’t really judge trade by the existence of a surplus or a deficit. You need instead to judge trade by the existence of a fair playing field, because there will be some countries whose efficiencies, whose access to resources, fairly make their product more efficiently produced and priced at a lower point than other countries who may not have access to the same resources, may not have that level of automation, and just because one country can sell more of their goods than another doesn’t mean there’s an unfairness going on. It just means that one is more efficient or has better resources or labor. What is really the way to look at trade is, is there equal opportunity for both of those countries to sell into the other without unfair tariffs by their government somehow creating this imbalance that would otherwise be resulting in a different trade balance.
So that makes sense to me. I’m a free trade supporter. I believe in free trade, and I hope President Trump reconsiders his position or at least negotiates with China in such a way that no tariff is imposed upon pork or soybeans, because it certainly would hurt South Dakota [Daugaard, 2018.04.19].
Shantel Krebs, take note: South Dakota’s most serious policymakers agree that Trump’s tariffs will lead to nothing but grief for South Dakota agriculture.
Cory,
I already proved Daugaard wrong yesterday. Did you not read the CNBC article?
Cory,
I should have read his comment first. He didn’t say Trump’s tariffs would greatly harm SD.
He said “So the impact may not be as bad as it might seem initially.”
I didn’t watch the video. Did he say “certainly would hurt South Dakota” as your title says?
If yes, than he is wrong.
Jason, you have this bad tendency about asking about things I’ve already said. If I put something in quote marks, I mean that, yes, the indicated speaker said those exact words. If I put words in blockquote format, I mean that, yes, if you review the linked source, you will find those exact words in context (or, in this case, you’ll hear them, and you can check my transcription for accuracy).
Sometimes I feel like you’re simply using the minimum number of words to produce the maximum amount of repetition, distraction, and confusion, not to mention draw me into expending energy being redundant.
Governor Daugaard said what I said he said.
Daugaard is right about American soybeans finding markets that would be denied South American supplies, but that’s a short term view. Ag economists see the longer term effect of Americans losing their Chinese market share as ultimately encouraging soybean production in other parts of the world (including China itself) as countries outbid each other for American soybeans. Here’s a recently concluded (March 18) Purdue University study that says U.S. exports and production would fall in the wake of Chinese tariffs, with a cost to the American economy (most of it felt in the farm belt) of $1.7 to $3.3 billion, depending on the size of the tariffs. Interestingly, the Purdue economists believe China will experience a similar loss, though measured against its population the impact would be much less. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q1/study-u.s.-soybean-production,-exports-would-fall-if-china-imposes-tariffs.html
John,
Here is the link I was referring to.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/china-trade-action-on-soybeans-could-leave-them-in-a-pickle.html
The SD farmers already won with a 20% tax deduction.
John,
This is from your link:
“The annual loss in U.S. economic well-being would range between $1.7 billion and $3.3 billion,” he noted. “Chinese economic well-being also falls if they impose a tariff, in some cases as much or more than for the U.S. The reason for that is that soybean imports are very important to their domestic economy.”
With all due respect to the “small islands of decency” that float within the state, let me expand.
The majority political party in SoDak doesn’t care a hoot for anyone outside the borders. In fact, they spend much of their legislative time devising unconstitutional regulations to stop outside interests from any type of support for the oppressed minorities in South Dakota.
At that, let me say, “Who gives a darn about the hog and soybean farmers? Let’s hear if for cheap bacon.” Hip Hip Hooray
*Maybe if the majority would try to get along and abandon their isolationist attitude then the rest of USA would work to help them!!
republican tariffs are dumb, always have been and always will be. Here is how they work for citizens and farmers in Vale, Oregon..they don’t. 20 million down the tubes in economic development, 200 jobs down the crapper. Why??? Donald trump and his merry band of idiot republican congress crooks. https://www.malheurenterprise.com/posts/4281/canadian-company-shelves-vale-mushroom-plant-citing-tariffs-and-other-changes
This area is a rural area much like most of South Dakota. 200 jobs is huge anyplace, but in rural areas, it is devastating to loose.
… Cory, Take note, Trump’s tariffs will not impact farmer/ranchers as you squawk. all of your blabbers are BS. what affects commodity prices are weather, oversupply and no demand, always has been always will be. Stick to topics you understand….
Mr. Novotny, does your comment mean you also consider Governor Daugaard to be squawking and blabbering BS about topics he does not understand?
Cory,
I already proved Daugaard doesn’t know what he is talking about.
. . . it could very well impair Trump’s support in the Midwest Farm Belt where he got a lot of support during the last election.
I call BS. I believe the President was right when he said he could shoot a person and not lose support from his followers. Taking money from their pockets falls under this umbrella of incontestable Trump support. Given what rural voters now know to be true about how President Trump’s policies are negatively affecting them, I submit that none would change their vote from Mr. Trump to Secretary Clinton if given the ability to retroactively do so. Knowing that means we have a president untethered from consequences. The blind cult of personality that endorses this president is no more influenced by reality than this president himself is. That is a dangerous spiral.
Steve, isn’t the point here that US tariffs cause China to reduce their orders/demand for US goods? When they shift to other sellers, doesn’t that reduce the demand for US suppliers? Am I not understanding that correctly? Trade wars are about shutting off markets – that is the “war.”
O,
Did you not know Trump gave farmers a 20% income deduction?
If not, you need to call your accountant and find out about this.
O,
Please inform yourself.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/19/china-trade-action-on-soybeans-could-leave-them-in-a-pickle.html
Jason, the point of the article you linked was that a trade war would cost China as well – shifting markets to Brazil would impose a cost. We all know that. The point is that in a trade war, you are looking to hurt the other trade partner. Their tariff on Us goods means that either the US has to drop the price to stay competitive under the newly inflated price, or be under cut by other countries’ (especially Brazil) non-tariffed prices. Any financial harm to China is seen as an offset to the financial harm caused by US tariffs on Chinese goods. Other governments are also more involved with the “fixing” of their nations; commodity and export prices, so they are equipped to fight the trade war. China will have to ask itself who gets hurt more and who will bank first – them (a nation built on personal sacrifice and hardship) or the soft US?
Go ahead, flippantly tell me to “inform myself” again . . .
As for your 20% income deduction – I presume that was a typo (you mean income tax deduction), but your Freudian slip is more on the money. Farmers’ income is already deferred into equipment costs at a rate that there is the absolute least “income” exposure – so that mitigates any tax reduction benefit – a benefit unsubstantiated mind you. Where is YOUR proof that farmers income went up from a reduced tax burden? (hint: you do not have that because most farmers file for extensions and do not have their final tax burdens for this year calculated).
O,
There is a 20% tax deduction of your net income for businesses who are not C corps.
We can hurt China more than they can hurt us. Do you doubt that?
Jason, where is your evidence that farmers saved ANY money on income taxes this year?
Educate me.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-pass-through-tax-deduction.html
The 20% begins for net income in 2018.
Can you point out where I said anything about 2017 income taxes?
O,
I forgot to mention that businesses can deduct 100% of asset purchases as of 9/28/17. That was the only thing 2017 taxes were affected by the new tax law.
The bill passed in Feb. did restore some tax deductions and credits that expired on 12/31/16.
Now it’s your turn to prove how China can hurt us more.
Jason, none of that shows farmers income increased (from reduced taxes).
O,
When your taxes are decreased, your net income increases.
Come on, people, don’t fall for Jason’s distractions. Whatever tax loopholes farmers have are completely separate from the economic impact of tariffs and a trade war, which is what Donald Trump is inviting. If tariffs cause farmers to lose $X, X is the same value regardless of whether tax loopholes save farmers Y, Z, or 0.
Passing new tax loopholes, of which farmers may or not take advantage, does not excuse lowering farmers’ income, introducing uncertainty, and reducing their potential customers through bad global trade policy.
Cory,
It’s all businesses that aren’t C-corps, not just farmers that get the 20% deduction. It’s also not an option.
It’s also not a loophole.
Both John and I have posted articles saying China would hurt itself more than the US if it put tariffs on Soybeans.
Agree Cory 19:53
One is not dependent nor should be on other
Soybean tariffs pork and beef will hit the homeland hard
The 20% is only taking it off the grain sales ONLY if you sell your grain to a Co-op and that would depend on price u would get
So farmers do not get 20% off the board like previously stated
Farm that are corpora5ion get the Corp tax cut but for obvious reasons you don’t c family farms corporated
So “farmers” don’t autamatically get cuts
Their are games and loopholes
just an FYI
LOL T.
All non C-corp business net income gets a 20% tax deduction.
Call any accountant and ask them.
There is no loophole. Once you get down to your taxable business income, take a 20% deduction of that amount.
I would love to bet your house, but than you would be homeless and I would feel bad for you.
Not that easy jason
You call with your farming expenses etc and c how u come out
here is the simplest language I could find for you
Yes the examples appear to have some 20% cuts
Depends
https://greatermankatoblog.com/2017/12/28/tax-bill-20-deduction-for-farmers/
Ok T,
Let’s bet your house,
You call any accountant (not H&R, JH, liberty) on Monday and report back what they say about non c-corp business income getting a 20% tax deduction on net income.
Jason
I would take your (mom’s) But would feel bad
I know it’s 4/20 but …
There’s loopholes thanks to Thun e
Farmers get 20% off gross if sales to coop
Now lately few months ago they changed that but it’s not retroactive last I knew cause it’s not “fair to original law” so it’s not 20% of net and depends on Other ag factors it may not be 20%
I could explain more but I realize your don’t have room to study all this in your mom’s basement it’s a bit more complicated than a free one minute call
Apologize to room way off subject here
Done w this
T,
I’m going to be kind and just call you ignorant.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-new-pass-through-tax-deduction.html
The co-op law is way above your pay grade.
Btw T, the co-op law was revised last month and takes effect as of January 1, 2018.
T, You owe an apology to my Mom who I do not live with.
Are you going to man up and do it?
I would have your house if you bet.
Hey everyone,
Let’s all band together and ignore Jason from now on.
Hey Dave,
What is your reason for ignoring me?
Dave,
That’s the best idea I heard today!!!
Let’s do it.
Jason always wants to bet the house..because he lives in his mom’s basement and she too is getting tired of paying his bills. He does not have one to loose, but his momma does, so it would be a win win for him. Kind of like tariffs are for the puppet masters. They always win and the farmer always looses.
You only have to look at banks to see who the winners are in this fiasco called the republican tax scam/tariff rip off of the farmer and everyone else, but the elite puppet masters.
“Before the change in tax law, the maximum U.S. corporate income tax rate was 35 percent, not including what companies paid in state income taxes. Banks historically paid some of the highest taxes among the major industries, due to their U.S.-centric business models. Before the Trump tax cuts, these banks paid between 28 to 31 percent of their income each year in corporate taxes.
The results released over the past week show how sharply those rates have dropped. JPMorgan Chase said it had a first-quarter tax rate of 18.3 percent, Goldman Sachs paid just 17.2 percent in taxes, and the highest-taxed bank of the six majors, Citigroup, had a tax rate of 23.7 percent. This is just one quarter’s results, however, and bank executives at the big six firms have estimated that their full-year tax rates will be something closer to 20 percent to 22 percent.” That was 3.68 billion in this last quarter.
The only ones making money are the bankers, the ones who hold the paper for the farmers who goes hat in hand each season to get operating money for the next year. 20% savings? Any accountant that is worth his salt has always been able to do that, ask them how Schedule F really works. https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/schedule-f-form-1040-profit-or-loss-from-farming
jason ,you are a bore. the gov.& our congressional crowd should have been more concerned about how bad we scqewed the chinese e-5 investors & our sad lack of support of cool. agriculture is the engine that keeps sd. moving .consequently we are sliding backwards by more bullcrap from many in sd.farmers &ranchers can not adjust to these shenanigans. my state’s corruption &is sell out to the power of ny. banks is killing sd. agriculture!
Jason,
Is it a net economic plus for producers of goods or services to cut off access to a market consisting of 18% of the world’s population and 15% of the world’s economic activity?
61% if USA soybeans are exported
33% consumed by China that’s about 14-15 billion consumed by China
Their middle class is growing
Their livestock needs soybean meal and corn Cutting the supply would slit their own throats not to mention if they
Have their own disaster which would need our supply even more
Yes u can call any accountant that makes $15 an hour and they will say 20% is across board call your
Ag accountant and if they are worth your $150 an hour they will tell you no
If you are over the $157,000 threshold then no
There are loopholes of setting up another business etc that business would be owned by pass thru entity or LLC but be aware of the llc w family farms This is exactly why the 20% is irrelevant to discuss if it’s across the board for farmers
T,
Most farmers don’t make over the thresholds.
Yes, all businesses will be subject to the income thresholds. If the business is a specified service business (SSB), there will be no Section 199A deduction allowed once taxable income if fully over the threshold amounts ($415,000 MFJ, half that for everyone else). Farmers who are over the threshold may continue to retain all of their Section 199A deduction assuming 50% of wages paid or 25% of wages plus 2.5% of qualified property is higher. Otherwise, it will be phased-out or fully limited once it reaches those same levels.
According to John’s link and mine SD is fine with Trumps policies.
T,
Do you want to talk about 2.5% of qualified property?
Cory wrote:
Jason,
Is it a net economic plus for producers of goods or services to cut off access to a market consisting of 18% of the world’s population and 15% of the world’s economic activity?
Why are you assuming there won’t be another customer to to take China’s share?
I am saying there will be or the price will increase to offset it.
No thanks jason
I’ll converse with my 5 star tax attorney
Not a 3.5 rated one
We loved 30% on soybeans sold to coops until we woke up like the rest of
The community and realized it would take the small grain elevator out as we
Would hate to see that
No one said farmer is unhappy w
Thu n e Nervous about the tariff ? Yes
U.S. Could Take More European Business If China Tariffs Soybeans
There are a lot of moving pieces in the trade situation between the U.S. and China.
Earlier this month, the U.S. and China announced tariffs on more than $100 billion on goods between the two countries. Lists of items on both lists continued to grow, and soybeans are one agricultural product in which China could soon place a tariff.
If China does place a tariff on U.S. soybeans, this could put more pressure on South America to supply soybeans to the world’s second-largest economy.
Mark Freight, managing director of International Agribusiness Group, LLC., doesn’t think this will change the demand picture for China.
“Their crushers are screaming just as loudly as U.S. farmers not to have that tariff,” he said on AgDay. “There’s a short-term opportunity for them to buy more beans and maybe export a little meal, so margins are good.”
If China reduces their soybean imports from the U.S., Feight thinks the U.S. could take more European business.
“It all offsets—we overlap that business anyway and it’s pretty easy to switch,” he said.
Hear what Feight says the acreage could look like in the future if this tariff goes into effect on AgDay above
https://www.agweb.com/article/us-could-take-more-european-business-if-china-tariffs-soybeans/
T
China will be fine- China was weaning off the US by buying larger amounts from Brazil , and Argentina which are cheaper and higher protein. Paraguay and Uruguay are also exporters that could fill the void.
China has a contract buy and feed out 10,000 cattle in the US ( of course Thune, Rounds, and Noem , screwed that one up so it won’t be SD) so they will avoid tariffs and that will take up some of the what they exported.
Dennis Daugaard says:
It troubles me that the governor appears to be basing his position on views expressed by the EU ambassador. Many Christians see the EU in the Bible’s end-time prophecies, and not in a positive light. Even from a secular perspective, it seems a little naive to suggest the EU ambassador would provide an objective opinion in the debate over free trade.
The problem here is that we suffocate our own industries under draconian regulations and confiscatory tax rates, then import duty-free from countries without comparable minimum-wage laws, environmental regulations, mandatory maternity leave, and so on. We lose out because of factors minimally related (or unrelated) to resources, efficiencies, automation, or quality of labor.
The Constitution Party platform advocates countering unequal opportunity and an unfair playing field by employing tariffs at least high enough to offset the government-imposed costs of doing business in America.
It seems to me that America’s trade policy should be biased in favor of American production and American economic independence.
I’ve posted more here:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/04/19/krebs-wishes-trumps-unpredictable-trade-policy-were-good-for-south-dakota/#comment-101233
Mr. Evans speaketh
“It troubles me that the governor appears to be basing his position on views expressed by the EU ambassador. Many Christians see the EU in the Bible’s end-time prophecies, and not in a positive light. Even from a secular perspective, it seems a little naive to suggest the EU ambassador would provide an objective opinion in the debate over free trade.”
Funny, those words are almost the exact verbiage that another newly registered republican has said, that would be one Vlad Putin. Did you plagiarize that Mr. Evans? Putin/trump are the clear voice of the republican party, nice.
Mr. Evans again:
“The problem here is that we suffocate our own industries under draconian regulations and confiscatory tax rates, then import duty-free from countries without comparable minimum-wage laws, environmental regulations, mandatory maternity leave, and so on. We lose out because of factors minimally related (or unrelated) to resources, efficiencies, automation, or quality of labor.”
It would seem that the EU has issues with the Christians because they are Christians who believe in fairness towards workers and of work environments. Mr. Evans can take a look at safety practices being utilized in the EU as well as the healthcare, that pesky maternity leave for both the man and the woman to care for their newborn children (thought that children were important to American Christians, but that is another debate), minimum wages of which the EU’s standards are even to high for VW workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee. See, the EU pays higher wages, can’t have that for the republican Constitution Party. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-volkswagen-corker/u-s-senator-drops-bombshell-during-vw-plant-union-vote-idUSBREA1C04H20140213
What “Draconian Regulations” would you eliminate first? Give us your first 5. Not too much to ask, is it?
Automation? Tell me sir, how many of your fellow Christians do you see in the self checkout at Walmart? Are you all in such a tizzy that you are afraid to greet the checkers that depend on that job you ignore?
Environmental regulations? From trump/Putin, with full support from republican congress for the pull out of the Paris Accord, that is rich Mr. Evans. Get a load of the dude in charge of the best program ever, the crook Scott Pruitt. The EPA, thanks President Nixon for the best idea, outside of eliminating slavery, that has ever been put on the books, being destroyed by the republican party of Mike Rounds.
This EU you question, has done a remarkable job as did the United States with acid rain, remember that? Environmental concerns are deeply embedded in European manufacturing and in the conscience of the place as well. Guess that is why they set Paris as the meeting for the historic announcement of working together to help solve climate change with the lowering of carbon footprints. https://sciencing.com/place-world-receives-acid-rain-23289.html
The Governor’s appeal to a European authority on a general economic principle is far less problematic than such an appeal to foreign opinion on constitutional law. We appeal to Adam Smith all the time with no concomitant hankering for the End Times.
If the CP is going to campaign against paid maternity leave, the CP will lose my family values vote.
However, if there are lots of draconian regulations hamstringing US business, then the CP should focus on repealing those regulations rather than engaging in tariffs that restrict market access for our producers. They should also focus on a “Buy American” campaign instead of a confiscatory government scheme that punishes consumers for choosing the products they deem superior and tanks the global economy.
The CP platform on trade seems to be contradictory: We oppose government intrusion in the marketplace, so when we run government, we will counter that intrusion with more intrusion.
I’d written:
Cory writes:
My statements above don’t have anything to do with hankering for the end times, and I’m not saying an appeal to a European authority is inherently problematic. I’m mainly just pointing out that an ambassador for a transnationalist organization is presumably biased toward a transnationalist position on trade.
I’d written:
Cory writes:
I doubt the Constitution Party ever had your vote, but most of our members aren’t campaigning against paid maternity leave. We generally say employers and employees should be free to negotiate the leave policies that work best for them. When they’re forced to comply with one-size-fits-all government mandates, both potential employers and potential employees end up with less wealth, liberty and happiness, and so do their families.
The tariffs advocated in the Constitution Party platform don’t apply to American producers, and China and other nations have every right to adopt trade policies that favor their own domestic production and economic independence.
As I’ve tried to explain above, American consumers often deem foreign products superior because of trade policies that leave foreign products with lower relative costs. The global economy is more stable when national economies are more stable, and national economies are more stable when they’re less dependent on foreign goods and foreign markets.
The party’s position could probably be more accurately expressed in the words of the Pat Buchanan column I’d quoted on Thursday:
Mr. Evans wrote:
In that quote he appeared to be basing his blathering on what the Governor appears to be doing, and opining on what an EU ambassador might or might not do. I disagree and think the EU ambassador would do the opposite.
Kurt ,
Oversimplified and incomplete explanation of economics. We’ve been trying to stabilize the economy for 300 years now- Guess what it’s the nature of the beast to be unstable.
Trade is not the only destabilizing factor to the economy , it’s just the thing that the simpleton and his administration from the conspiracy network can understand . Protectionism doesn’t work – The average person is going to be fighting inflation alongside declining wages( That makes cheap stuff more in demand to keep the service industry open) – Right now we have a very soft dollar and no one knows how to fix it or why it’s even happening.
Mr. Evans, once again, please give me just 5 “Draconian Regulations” and “Confiscatory Tax Rates” that “suffocate our own industries under draconian regulations and confiscatory tax rates” , 5 of each sir. You claimed them, no please name them.
I’d written:
Robin writes:
I’ve never said it’s the “only” destabilizing factor.
Many Americans are already fighting inflation alongside declining wages. Businesses in the U.S. have to deal with a regulatory monster that now devours approximately $10,000 per employee in annual compliance costs.
With one hand the government increases the minimum wage, and with the other hand it cuts free trade deals that throw American workers into a dogfight with foreign labor costing as little as $1 an hour. We’re practically forcing American companies overseas, and Americans’ wages end up going down as a result.
The dollar is soft because the Federal Reserve is stealing its value right out of our pockets by creating new money. Many liberty advocates call this the inflation tax. Many of us also call it counterfeiting.
Jerry writes:
I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be worth my time. Even if all of the taxes and regulations we stack onto our own industries were reasonable, that wouldn’t invalidate the Constitution Party’s support for tariffs high enough to offset them.
Mr. Evans, your voice is the voice of the trump republican, plain and simple. There is no difference between the republican party and your republican party. Then there is this drivel “Many Americans are already fighting inflation alongside declining wages. Businesses in the U.S. have to deal with a regulatory monster that now devours approximately $10,000 per employee in annual compliance costs.” Like what Mr. Evans? Who are these many Americans? Are any of these many Americans in South Dakota? If so, who and where? How many of these many Americans are in Puerto Rico, as an example?
I submit that if the business you claim has been hamstrung would bring back the billions upon billions of profits that they have hidden overseas or in Sioux Falls, that so called $10,000 would actually could be paid in salary’s, bi-annually to every “many” American workers. Your pandering to the wealthy will keep your grift going only because if siphons votes from Democrats.
Mr. Evans, here is one of those “tariff’s high enough”, oops, that just got lifted for the Russians, nice. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/23/us-sanctions-russia-rusal-oleg-deripaska-545660
I guess those Draconian Regulations were not Draconian enough. Same can be said about those “Confiscatory Tax Rates” that were suffocating the Russians with the undo anti-love theme we have had since the election of trump. It’s springtime Mr. Evans, come on out and smell the roses of reality.
I’d written:
Jerry replies:
Hopefully this short video will clear things up a little for you, Jerry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto