And they won’t. The leopard could be actively latched onto their faces in the voting booth, and they’d still vote R.
Except the scale of it is so much larger this time. As I posted on an earlier thread, farm groups are saying that their foreign inputs cost more, farm equipment from other countries costs more (because of steel tariffs), and their income is cut, because of the retaliatory tariffs from countries that used to buy their produce.
It’s not so simple as subsidizing a particular product that was specifically targeted, like soybeans.
ETA: replying to Railer13
If farm costs go up due to increased foreign prices (like potash for fertilizer), subsidies will increase, no matter the crop. This time, it will be producers of soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, and other commodities that will feel the pain of decreased exports and lower prices. And subsidies will rise, just as they did in 2020. IMO, of course.
But your mention of increased equipment costs is an excellent point. Farmers won’t buy new equipment, which will lead to suffering by the manufacturers, which will further depress that sector of the economy.
And there are other ways that the Trump Administration is screwing farmers.
He’s cancelled a lot of the food assistance programs that BUY food from farmers, the government was the single biggest customer of some farm operations.
And when these farmers go to to their local branch of BumFuck Savings and Loan to get a loan for the seed and fertilizer they need, or to upgrade farm equipment….they’re going to find that BumFuck Savings and Loan doesn’t have a big vault of money they use to fund loans.
They will find out that their bank uses a variety of government programs to fund farm loans, and the role of the banker is matching customers with these programs and servicing the loans.
Michael Lewis wrote about this in The Fifth Risk, and apparently banks are not always transparent about how these loans are funded……because their customers hate the idea of government assistance. But they will notice that much of this funding has disappeared.
There was an article in the Times about a Trump-supporting farmer (in Nebraska, I think) who expects subsidies. But it mentioned there is a bigger problem. China started to find other sources for agricultural products, so the lost markets may not come back.
And if/when the next D administration comes around, it will be held against THEM that the markets don’t just rematerialize.
Predicting the past is easy!
Biden was criticized for not fixing it the last time. He kept the Trump Tariffs, when the critics said he should drop them. But of course, unilaterally dropping the US tariffs wouldn’t have changed the Chinese tariffs. He was in a bind, if he maintains the tariffs while negotiating, the problems persist. But if he unilaterally drops the US tariffs, he’s “surrendered to China!”
Yet another case of “Easy to break, hard to fix”, where the Dems get the blame for not fixing things fast enough.
Albertsons says it won’t pay tariffs.
Well, effectively, anyway.
One of North America’s largest supermarket chains has bluntly told its suppliers they will not accept increased prices related to Trump-imposed tariffs.
‘Sorry, suppliers. You have to pay the Trump Tax. Passing the expense downstream isn’t fair! We don’t want to have to raise our prices and lose customers!’
Suppliers can invoice the tariffs, but they need to provide 90 days notice and prove that the tariffs are increasing the prices of their products. Then Albertsons has another month to decide whether they’ll pay it or not.
One presumes that Albertsons think their suppliers have been price gouging with 100%+ markups.
Another good way to lose customers is empty shelves.
When I worked in a ski shop just after high school, everything was marked up 100%.
Yep. It would be a shame if Albertsons ‘found out’.
Yep … and how much was marked down 50% to clear last season’s stock?
If a supermarket achieved overall more than a couple of percent profit, they’d be exceptional. They make most of their money through having very high stock turns of inventory, not high margins. If it doesn’t move, they don’t carry it.
Whenever we (supermarket company) get a new employee from a fashion or specialty retailer there is an adjustment period as they get used to dealing in basis points (basis point is 1/100 of a percent) rather than in percentage points for margin.
If we start giving customers an average of 12% discount instead of 10%, we are out of business.
We got a VP who spent 20 years in a luxury goods firm. He nearly took the company down because he didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t grasp the impact of the decisions he was making.
Yeah, that Albertson’s shit isn’t going to fly. They are big but not that big. The suppliers might swallow the cost increase, but they’ll cut all the trade funding (back end rebates) to equalize the “dead net” cost to their actual production cost + margin + tariff.
It’s just posturing for negotiations. And virtue signaling to both customers and the Trump administration.
Let’s tell it like it is. He was shocked because he’s an idiot.
If he DID vote for Harris, it’s more likely that he would have known who the tariff was going to fall upon.
It’s not probative, but I’m just sayin’…
I don’t understand how this could possibly work – the tariffs are changing from week to week, sometimes from day to day.
That’s the catch.
Or for a different reference: ‘We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting; by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more…’
That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Or, help, help, I’m being repressed! (oppressed? I don’t remember <hangs head in shame>)
It’s 2.
Basically Trump is an idiot. I’ve lost so much respect for so many political channels, that have said words to the effect of “Trump can’t possibly be this stupid, so it’s clearly a 5D chess move to short the market blah blah”.
No, he is this stupid. How much more evidence do they need?
He was claiming that tariffs are paid by the exporter way back in the 90s on Oprah. If he’s pretending to be stupid he’s playing the looooooong game.
He’ll grift on the side of course, but the explanation #1 should simply remain: he’s an idiot.
His latest push - that tariffs could replace income tax - is a perfect example of this. Besides the math not working, at all, there’s the small problem of: if the tariffs succeed in eliminating imports, then there’s no money coming in to run the government. Although, I suppose that there are people who will say that’s the plan…
It is easier to justify extending $5,5 trillion in tax cuts if you can claim $6 trillion in new revenue, regardless of whether this number is truth adjacent.