New York farmer apparently buys some of his inputs from neighbouring Canada . Didn’t have a problem with the tariffs, because he’d been assured by Donald Trump that Canada would pay them. That’s how Trump tariffs work, after all.
When told that he would have to pay tariffs on his imports:
But, but, Trump says so! What’s wrong with the world?
Must be Biden’s fault!
Apparently that article is taken from a longer article in the Atlantic, which is paywalled.
It must really suck if you’re living in a Trump-land fantasy and reality hits you right in the face.
Or, to quote another thread here today:
Where in the article does the farmer make these claims?
He thinks the contract he had the Canadian company should protect him, but he doesn’t seem to mention that he didn’t have a problem with the tariffs originally nor anything about whatever bullshit Trump has said.
The farmer may not have made the claims, but it’s a very common misconception in Trump-land that the targeted country somehow pays the tariffs. Eric Trump, one of the stupidest of the Trump offspring, made a proclamation some time ago showing that he doesn’t even understand the difference between tariffs and sanctions, and possibly neither does his orange progenitor.
And it does. Except the Canadian supplier has no control over what the US government suddenly decides to charge for imports, or even if they decide to block them entirely.
The sad thing is that this unpredictability and hostility driven by ignorance is damaging to both economies.
I think this relies on being aware of what Trump has said in the past. The farmer does seem surprised this is happening to him. If he understood how tariffs worked this would not be a surprise.
Trump has said/implied the costs would be on other countries and not US businesses/consumers.
What Was Said
“If you look at China, I took in hundreds of billions of dollars in my term, hundreds of billions. They never paid 10 cents to any other president, and yet they paid hundreds of billions.”
— at a Rose Garden event last week announcing sweeping tariffs“For decades, they gave up to China. I’m the only one that — do you how much — China has paid almost $700 billion in tariffs under me.”
— at a National Republican Congressional Committee event on TuesdayFalse. Tariffs imposed on imports of foreign goods do not mean another country is paying the bill. The costs are largely passed on to American companies and consumers, as a vast body of research has shown. - SOURCE
Right, but my point is that the OP shouldn’t have implied the farmer made those claims when he hadn’t.
The spirit of the OP is that the farmer got his comeuppance (“shocked, SHOCKED”), but we don’t know from the article if the farmer is Trump adherent.
Yes, but I also I think it’s reasonable to assume the reporter probably asked the farmer about Trump because if the farmer had said he was a Trump voter/believer, then that would make for a much more juicy story — the story the OP wants it to be, but isn’t necessarily.
I mean, I don’t know, I might be wrong, the farmer could have been wearing a MAGA hat during the interview for all I know. But something like that probably would have been mentioned.
But either way, my issue here is that the OP attributes things to the farmer that he we don’t know he necessarily said/believed.
Farmers strongly tend towards being conservative (not saying all do).
They did not mention him wearing a MAGA hat but neither did they mention him saying he voted for Harris (or anyone else) or wearing a Kamala 2024 hat. That would be relevant.
We do not have enough information to say for sure but, if you had to place a sizeable monetary bet, which way would you guess that farmer voted?
It doesn’t matter.
The danger is, this kinda scare journalism is becoming an epidemic.
It’s worse than saying: " My sisters neighbor heard yada yada yada… tariffs on his feed", because its believed by 1000s, not just your sister over the back fence.
What do you mean by “scare journalism?”
I assume (and may be wrong) that you think this journalism is unfair and meant to antagonize/be divisive and not that it is just scary in a general sense.
Unless the farmer voted for Harris (or anyone other than Trump) I am missing where this is “scare journalism.”
It’s “memeness” of it.
And the more obscure the headline, the more readers, then its a big nothing burger.
This was obviously set up to look like the farmer was regretting his political stance now that “he” was charged tariffs.
But, like you say, we don’t know his politics. So yeah, scare journalism.
I’ve never met a regretful Trumper. If they have to out and out lie to do it.
I agree with you on that. I saw an article recently that polled Trump voters and only 2% said they regretted their vote and only 1% said they might have voted for someone else.
I guess we will have to see how much pain they are willing to endure for their faith. The sucky part is the rest of us are along for the ride too.
So? I don’t think that gives the OP carte blanche to make up attributions to the farmer.
I mean, I doubt he’s doing it on purpose. Maybe he read too much into the mildly clickbaity Syracuse headline and not enough of the actual article.
I think it does.
I mean, I agree it is wrong to say THAT farmer had THAT position without more info.
But, I think, this is missing the forest because of the trees. I doubt this particular farmer is the only one facing this challenge. I’d be willing to bet if you gathered 100 farmers from his county they would be majority Trump voters.
I think this farmer is being used as a proxy for a population that fits what the article is on about. Maybe it was lazy/wrong/bad journalism to do that but I think the main message of the article holds.
ETA: Weirdly, I was completely unsuccessful finding voting patterns for that county. I thought that was data you could find for any county in the US. My Google-Fu is usually strong but I failed this time (I even committed the cardinal sin here of asking an AI…it didn’t have an answer either).
I’m willing to believe that the OP’s conclusion, whether or not it is based on fact, is a reasonable one.
I order things from a particular seller in the US. Not often, but often enough to have established a relationship with the seller. She was surprised to hear that even though she throws in free shipping, I still have to pay customs brokerage fees and GST at point of delivery. We may contract for a certain price, but I know I’ll end up paying more in the end, when the goods are delivered. She had no idea that I had to.
Sounds like this farmer, having paid nothing extra for an import from Canada before, was blindsided by Trump’s tariffs, and he doesn’t like it. Well, suck it up, buttercup; we Canadian individuals have been paying extra on imports from the US for years, regardless of the contracted-upon price.
Given all this, I think that the OP reached a reasonable conclusion.
I think that’s a pretty depressing commentary.
You could have just said that from the beginning.
I raised the issue as a tree-specific discussion. I pointed that out twice.
I don’t really care about voting patterns, I care that the OP completely made up stuff about the farmer. I am having difficulty imagining how it is a “reasonable conclusion” to just invent other people’s thoughts or motivations. But apparently, I might be in the minority on that score, and if that is so, then this is all even more depressing.
This is a nitpick.
I agree we cannot guess at a particular person’s motivations or reliably predict what choices they might make. But, we can look at the overall voting patterns and that tells a story (reminds me of psychohistory from Asimov’s sci-fi “Foundation” series of books). No one person can be known well but a group can be very well understood.
Harping about the “one guy you cannot know” misses the 100 guys/gals, as a group, that you can know when it comes to this. And this is not sci-fi. Modern marketing is built around doing this very thing and they are better at it than you might think.
Trees…forest.
Isaac Asimov, modern marketing, sci-fi, trees and forests… you’re jumping down too many rabbit holes for me.