China raises tariffs on $50B of US soybeans, other goods

[SnowRider]

Just now, racer254 said:

Everyone here should take a good look at the trump haters who are smiling at any chance of him hurting the pocketbooks of US citizens?  Unbelievable.

 Hey Doe Dumber......his self inflicted actions have negstive ramifications on those who support him......that’s  

[SnowRider]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Dude, the vast majority of farmers are pretty diversified.   Well they are around me.   Many feed the vast majority of what they grow.  

Sure some crop farmers will take a bit of a hit but don't you worry govt subsidies will cover them.  

Industries we don't do reasonable trade protection need to be subsidized at times to survive.   Farms seems to need it either way.   Farming is its own enemy.   Maximize production no matter what.  Drives the cost down, govt gives them money they try and grow more to get more money.   Its a terrible cycle and in reality probably needs a shake up.  The mere fact good crop land isn't dropping in price much or even increasing tells me all I need to know.   Someone is making it work.  

Imagine in your industry if everyone just produced and produced with nothing sold.  Just kept going at it as fast as possible maximizing production no matter what.    

Iowa has 13,000,000 hogs.....did China slap a tariff on pork.....

Edited April 4, 2018 by SnowRider

[racer254]

Just now, SnowRider said:

 Hey Doe Dumber......his self inflicted actions have negstive ramifications on those who support him......that’s  

Keep hoping for bad luck on your fellow Americans and keep voting for the people that stick up for sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants.  It speaks volumes about your character.

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

Iowa has 13,000,000 hogs.....did China slap a tariff on pork.....

They are only hurting themselves.   Some large pork operations are Chinese owned.    They also need our beans for their pork and poultry operations.  

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/03/news/economy/smithfield-wh-group-china-pork-tariffs/index.html

A Chinese company is set to become a casualty of Beijing's new tariffs on US exports.

China's move this week to slap tariffs on $3 billion worth of US imports, including pork products, is a blow to Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, the world's biggest pork producer.

 

Smithfield was bought in 2013 by China's WH Group for around $5 billion in what at the time was the biggest ever foreign takeover of a US company.

that the new tariff regime will be a headache for WH Group," said Loren Puette, director at ChinaAg, an agricultural research firm.

The Hong Kong-listed shares of WH Group (WHGLY)have plunged more than 11% since Beijing first proposed sanctioning imports of pork from the United States less than two weeks ago. On Monday, it went ahead with a 25% tariff on all pork imports.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[steve from amherst]

The absurdity of federal farm subsidies gets worse still, as even non-farmers who moved into residential areas that once were farmland have received farm subsidy payments from the government, as have wealthy farmers who have received annual payments even when they are no longer growing the subsidized crop.

In 2008, the "actively engaged" rule was put forth specifically to nip this type of fraud in the bud. As its name implies, only those who are "actively engaged" in farming are supposed to be receiving the subsidies. But, alas, when EWG released its updated database in 2011, they found no changes to the status quo:ⁱⁱⁱ

"Despite this rule, subsidies still line the pockets of absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city. In 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities – Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi – collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients. The phenomenon of urban residents receiving federal farm payments remains widespread and coast-to-coast."

[JEFF]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not sure but if they did they are only hurting themselves.   Some large pork operations are Chinese owned.    

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/03/news/economy/smithfield-wh-group-china-pork-tariffs/index.html

A Chinese company is set to become a casualty of Beijing's new tariffs on US exports.

China's move this week to slap tariffs on $3 billion worth of US imports, including pork products, is a blow to Virginia-based Smithfield Foods, the world's biggest pork producer.

 

Smithfield was bought in 2013 by China's WH Group for around $5 billion in what at the time was the biggest ever foreign takeover of a US company.

that the new tariff regime will be a headache for WH Group," said Loren Puette, director at ChinaAg, an agricultural research firm.

The Hong Kong-listed shares of WH Group (WHGLY)have plunged more than 11% since Beijing first proposed sanctioning imports of pork from the United States less than two weeks ago. On Monday, it went ahead with a 25% tariff on all pork imports.

I'll get flamed for saying this by some, but foreign countries should not be allowed to own such large food producers in this country.  

[Snoslinger]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Actually I've been critical on Trump on a number of issues.

So how many acres do you "farm?"  

Some of my best friends and neighbors are farmers.   I deer hunted with farmers for 25 years.   Lots of time sitting in trucks waiting for the deer drive to begin discussing farming.   Every last one of them says the same thing.   While you won't always make a killing you'll never go under if you know how to do 2 things, farm the land and farm the govt.

 

[Snoslinger]

14 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Everyone here should take a good look at the trump haters who are smiling at any chance of him hurting the pocketbooks of US citizens?  Unbelievable.

not really, I only want trump voters to pay for their stupidity. people like you.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Snoslinger

[Highmark]

7 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

The absurdity of federal farm subsidies gets worse still, as even non-farmers who moved into residential areas that once were farmland have received farm subsidy payments from the government, as have wealthy farmers who have received annual payments even when they are no longer growing the subsidized crop.

In 2008, the "actively engaged" rule was put forth specifically to nip this type of fraud in the bud. As its name implies, only those who are "actively engaged" in farming are supposed to be receiving the subsidies. But, alas, when EWG released its updated database in 2011, they found no changes to the status quo:ⁱⁱⁱ

"Despite this rule, subsidies still line the pockets of absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city. In 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities – Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi – collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients. The phenomenon of urban residents receiving federal farm payments remains widespread and coast-to-coast."

The biggest problem with the majority of our current crop subsidies is the incentive is to do what causes the price to be too low in the first place.   Over produce.  Oh your price is low well then we will pay you $x.xx a bushel so you are ok.  Farmer see's this and thinks in order to make more I need to produce more.   Boom price go or are held down.  

Then you have the seed companies making better and better seed variations which are more expensive and.....causes too much production.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[Anler]

17 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Everyone here should take a good look at the trump haters who are smiling at any chance of him hurting the pocketbooks of US citizens?  Unbelievable.

Nobody is smiling. I give trump props for addressing this because we have been getting fucked on trade with them. 

[Highmark]

Just now, Nazipigdog said:

Nobody is smiling. I give trump props for addressing this because we have been getting fucked on trade with them. 

Yep, we need to let the negotiations settle out before over reacting.   Fucking markets these days react if Melania farts.    People need to step back and chill.  

[steve from amherst]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

The biggest problem with the majority of our current crop subsidies is the incentive is to do what causes the price to be too low in the first place.   Over produce.  Oh your price is low well then we will pay you $x.xx a bushel so you are ok.  Farmer see's this and thinks in order to make more I need to produce more.   Boom price go or are held down.  

Then you have the seed companies making better and better seed variations which are more expensive and.....causes too much production.

So we are paying subsidies so a small handful of farmers can make money feeding people that don't like us. That makes about as much sense as stopping muslims from killing muslims.

[steve from amherst]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Yep, we need to let the negotiations settle out before over reacting.   Fucking markets these days react if Melania farts.    People need to step back and chill.  

And earnings reports in the next few weeks should change that.

[Highmark]

20 minutes ago, steve from amherst said:

So we are paying subsidies so a small handful of farmers can make money feeding people that don't like us. That makes about as much sense as stopping muslims from killing muslims.

Do some research on ARC/PLC and LDP's.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/5980

The ARC-CO program provides revenue loss coverage at the county level. ARC-CO payments are issued when the actual county crop revenue of a covered commodity is less than the ARC-CO guarantee for the covered commodity.  

 

Not an expert this but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes.  The cost of the program is relatively cheap as comparison to input costs.

Prices set in the spring at a certain value per bushel.  Say $4.00.   Your grounds production is tracked and kept.   Say I have 1000 acres that historically ave. 200 b/acre.

One way or another I'm guaranteed $800 acre (production x's price set in spring) rather my production is low or the price takes it below that.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

37 minutes ago, Highmark said:

The biggest problem with the majority of our current crop subsidies is the incentive is to do what causes the price to be too low in the first place.   Over produce.  Oh your price is low well then we will pay you $x.xx a bushel so you are ok.  Farmer see's this and thinks in order to make more I need to produce more.   Boom price go or are held down.  

Then you have the seed companies making better and better seed variations which are more expensive and.....causes too much production.

Margins are extremely low, thus the drive for more bushels per acre.  

LDP hasn't been engaged to any extent in over a decade.

Neal

[Angry ginger]

while i am not a big fan of government subsidizing stuff making sure our food production system is functioning properly is one of the places it can be justified IMO

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Margins are extremely low, thus the drive for more bushels per acre.  

LDP hasn't been engaged to any extent in over a decade.

Neal

Other payment subsidies are that I mentioned in another post.

I agree margins are low and the push for more B/A just drives them down even more. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

32 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Do some research on ARC/PLC and LDP's.

https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/5980

The ARC-CO program provides revenue loss coverage at the county level. ARC-CO payments are issued when the actual county crop revenue of a covered commodity is less than the ARC-CO guarantee for the covered commodity.  

 

Not an expert this but I'm pretty sure this is how it goes.  The cost of the program is relatively cheap as comparison to input costs.

Prices set in the spring at a certain value per bushel.  Say $4.00.   Your grounds production is tracked and kept.   Say I have 1000 acres that historically ave. 200 b/acre.

One way or another I'm guaranteed $800 acre (production x's price set in spring) rather my production is low or the price takes it below that.

Production numbers are not guaranteed.  Any reduced production would be covered under crop insurance, not LDP.  If low yield is above the insurance threshold then the farmer doesn't get any insurance payment.  

Neal

[Highmark]

4 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Production numbers are not guaranteed.  Any reduced production would be covered under crop insurance, not LDP.  If low yield is above the insurance threshold then the farmer doesn't get any insurance payment.  

Neal

I guess the point is there is protection for both price and production in the "insurance."  

[NaturallyAspirated]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I guess the point is there is protection for both price and production in the "insurance."  

Sure, but again price hasn't been supported by LDP in a decade and a half, or so.  

Insurance costs the farmer out of pocket, with no guarantee of use.  It's like car insurance.  

Neal

[MiSledder]

2 hours ago, Snoslinger said:

I swear you're borderline retarded.

The dnc solution, call everyone retards

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

Sure, but again price hasn't been supported by LDP in a decade and a half, or so.  

Insurance costs the farmer out of pocket, with no guarantee of use.  It's like car insurance.  

Neal

Not talking LDP.   Talking ARC and PLC.   Have you used either of those in the past 3 years?  Are you losing money?   Insurance does cost the farmer money and from what I know its relatively cheap considering a percentage of all input costs involved.  

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Not talking LDP.   Talking ARC and PLC.   Have you used either of those in the past 3 years?  Are you losing money?   Insurance does cost the farmer money and from what I know its relatively cheap considering a percentage of all input costs involved.  

No.

Not losing money but profits are minimal.

Insurance is not cheap, few farmers are fully covered that I know.

Neal

[Highmark]

16 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

No.

Not losing money but profits are minimal.

Insurance is not cheap, few farmers are fully covered that I know.

Neal

Different here.

2011-2013 were pretty good years.   Lots of corn sold between $5.50 and $7.50 then and beans for $11.50-$15.50.  

Farmers couldn't buy equipment fast enough to avoid the taxes and the land prices.....WOW!   Seen good ground go for $14k+ acre with no development possibilities.  

$7.50 corn x 225+ b/a (common around here) and guys were rolling in it.  1000 acres of that at profits of $800+ acre.   Not too shabby.  

Edited April 4, 2018 by Highmark

[Mileage Psycho]

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

Dude, the vast majority of farmers are pretty diversified.   Well they are around me.   Many feed the vast majority of what they grow.  

Sure some crop farmers will take a bit of a hit but don't you worry govt subsidies will cover them.  

Industries we don't do reasonable trade protection need to be subsidized at times to survive.   We are paying either way.   Farms seems to need it either way.   Farming is its own enemy.   Maximize production no matter what.  Drives the cost down, govt gives them money they try and grow more to get more money.   Its a terrible cycle and in reality probably needs a shake up.  The mere fact good crop land isn't dropping in price much or even increasing tells me all I need to know.   Someone is making it work.  

Imagine in your industry if everyone just produced and produced with nothing sold.  Just kept going at it as fast as possible maximizing production no matter what.    

Your post is a handjob