MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Republicans Could Face Political Consequences Over Trump's Tariffs

"He's going to be a one-term president, plain and simple."

Bill Barksdale/NewscomBill Barksdale/NewscomTariffs have economic consequences, both intended and unintended. They also have political consequences, as Republicans will likely learn in the months ahead.

At the intersection of the economic and political fallout from a potential trade war with China lies the soybean. America is the world's top producer of the crop, and China is the world's largest consumer. China bought more than $14 billion of American-grown soy last year, accounting for 61 percent of total U.S. soybean exports and more than 30 percent of overall U.S. soybean production. In response to President Donald Trump's decision to impose tariffs on more than 1,300 Chinese-made goods last month, China has threatened a 25 percent tariff on soybeans and other American agricultural products.

If soybeans were commonly grown in Brooklyn or San Francisco, Republicans probably wouldn't have to worry about upsetting the people who produce them. But as the GOP tries to keep control of Congress this year, the fact that Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and North Dakota are some of the nation's top soybean-producing states is creating some headaches for the party of Trump. Key congressional races across the Midwest could tip the scales in the House, and Republicans are eyeing Democrat-held Senate seats in Missouri and North Dakota to pad a slim 51–49 majority in the upper chamber.

With that in mind, The New York Times has dispatched a reporter to soybean country—specifically to Cass County, North Dakota, the nation's top soybean-producing county—to see what farmers think about Trump's trade skirmishes with China.

"If he doesn't understand what he's doing to the nation by doing what he's doing, he's going to be a one-term president, plain and simple," Robert Runck, a fourth-generation farmer, informs the paper. Runck tells the Times that tariffs would "cost Kevin Cramer some votes" too. Cramer is the Republican congressman who currently represents all of North Dakota, and he's hoping to unseat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D–N.D.) in November.

An analysis from the Brookings Institution shows that Trump's tariffs figure to do the most damage to the economies of red states including Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. (Missouri, remember, is hosting a key Senate race this year.)

When it comes to Chinese tariffs on American agricultural products, Brookings found that much of the pain is again concentrated in the Midwest.

Brookings InstitutionBrookings InstitutionTrump's tariffs are his way of fulfilling a campaign-trail promise to revive American steel plants. But the protectionist policies that might help boost steel mills come at the expense of a much larger group within the president's political coalition. For every steel-producing job in the country, there are about 46 steel-consuming jobs—many of which are now on shakier ground because of the higher costs created by tariffs.

And on the agriculture front, the president "has little to no understanding of the farm coalition," Republican strategist Karl Rove tells the Times.

Trump is New Yorker who ran hotels and casinos, then became a TV star. Nothing about that résumé suggests that he would have a detailed understanding of the concerns of a North Dakota farmer—no, Trump Steaks do not count—or an Ohio machine shop worker. But Trump supporters have never seemed to care that the president isn't like them. Indeed, Trump's unwillingness to make phony attempts at courting rural voters is one of the things that made him stand out during the campaign.

But it's one thing to support a candidate who is nothing like you. It's another to keep supporting him, and his party, when he is actively making your job more difficult or your lifestyle more costly.

Trump won the American heartland in part by promising to end a regulatory war on agricultural and industrial jobs, and he has been following through on that promise. But he now risks replacing one set of oppressive economic policies with another, putting farmers and manufacturers on the front lines of a trade war. The fact that he's not directly responsible for Chinese tariffs on soybeans might not save Trump, or the rest of his party, from the ire of those who suffer the consequences of these myopic trade policies.

It's a political cliché that people vote with their wallets. That may hold true even for a president who smashed so many other traditional notions of how to get elected.

Photo Credit: Bill Barksdale/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    How can you cut tariffs without expenditure reductions? I was informed that cutting taxes without expenditure reductions is bad. So, why are tariffs different?

  • TuIpa||

    SPOILER: In this thread Old Mexican makes a fool of himself again.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Indeed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obviously all these soy farmers will be able to transition to fill the explosion of steel manufacturing jobs we're going to see.

  • Juice||

    Trump won the American heartland in part by promising to end a regulatory war on agricultural and industrial jobs

    I seriously doubt the agricultural industry wants to end the regulations that subsidize them and keep prices high.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    What Juice said.

    "the president "has little to no understanding of the farm coalition,"

    Even a big city developer can't fathom the level of corruption and cronyism that is US agriculture.

  • I can't even||

    The threatened tariffs that have not occurred yet and seem to have softened China's negotiating stance? I predict that will cost Trump zero votes.

  • Cranedoc||

    Because China buys the soybeans to distribute to its citizens (communism, remember?) so putting a tariff on soybeans would just mean that it's taxing itself! Which makes it meaningless. As is its threat.

    Any fourth generation farmers interviewed for this story as likely millionaires with delusions of grandeur whose vote still only counts as one.

  • Echospinner||

    As you said the Chinese are communists with a president for life. They don't care if the citizens pay more. It is an advantage they have in trade negotiations. Whatever the central committee decides is what happens.

  • Rhywun||

    Before I weep for the poor farmers, I wonder if the author care to state how many billions of dollars they're being subdized with this year.

  • Rhywun||

    Or, what y'all said above.

  • Bearded Spock||

    If Trump had called for an end to soybean subsidies I doubt Reason would be Concern-Trolling about his political prospects.

  • Devastator||

    Doesn't tend to be family farms though, it's mostly industrial farms owned by corps that are being subsidized because they can afford the lawyers and lobbyists that see to that they make profit and get subsidies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "With that in mind, The New York Times has dispatched a reporter to soybean country—specifically to Cass County, North Dakota, the nation's top soybean-producing county—to see what farmers think about Trump's trade skirmishes with China."

    On the one hand, you've got reporters from the New York Times.

    On the other hand, you've got markets. Care to hear what the markets have to say?

    Set this chart to one month if it isn't there already:

    http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/.....meframe=1m

    Do you see where all that volume was on April 4th, when the price hit a local min? That's what happened the day President Xi announced that he would hit Soybeans with a 25% tariff. Count over one, two, three trading days later, and you'll see that soybean prices recovered to prices that are more than than they were the day President Xi announced the retaliatory tariffs.

    Soybeans have rallied much higher than they were before the Xi announced the tariffs--although they've pulled back since. They're still trading about where they were before Xi announced the tariffs. Meanwhile, a quick look at the futures shows soybeans trading in tandem with wheat, corn, and rice--crops that are unaffected by Xi's threatened tariffs.

  • vek||

    And this is why we have the upper hand in a nutshell.

    China buys almost nothing from us. We can easily shrug off everything we export to them if we had to. We have plenty of other places to sell our stuff, AND to buy cheap imported crap from.

    Problem is, China CANNOT replace the USA as a place to export their stuff to. This is why if it went to a "trade war" we would easily win, hands down, no contest.

    All these pussy writers don't seem to be able to grasp the obvious facts and logic that we have everything to gain, and almost nothing to lose, in this particular situation. They're all desk jockeys who have never done anything real in their lives, and don't understand how things really work. As a business owner I have had to strategize, think through consequences, etc. These people seem utterly incapable of thinking through any real world outcomes of these actions. The worst case scenario is not very bad for us, but the best case scenario has a lot of upside. That to me sounds like a worthwhile risk to take.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Trump is New Yorker who ran hotels and casinos, then became a TV star. Nothing about that résumé suggests that he would have a detailed understanding of the concerns of a North Dakota farmer"

    Soy Bean farming: the rocket surgery of agriculture. Luckily for us, Reason has a writer who grew up on a soy bean farm and can 'splain it to us.

  • I can't even||

    Living in or near the Imperial Capital gives special insight on all matters.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Too bad Hillary or GayJay weren't elected. They are both clearly pro commercial soybean farmers.

  • ||

    Wake me up when the tariffs ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

    And stop fucking writing as though they have. Predicting election results based on a non-event? Worse than weak tea.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +infiinity

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Hey, self-deluded. Yeah, you. Both of you.

    I work in Procurement. It doesn't matter if the tariffs haven't been implemented yet. Suppliers are already ratcheting up prices. The stock market is one thing, but price signals don't come only from the stock market.

  • ||

    Can you show up with more than the three invoices you specifically needed to process? The PPI is creeping up. But that's due to a general growing inflationary trend spurred by money supply issues. And interest rates are also ratcheting up, which is contributing to the cost increases.

    I see prices growing as well. Do I see them specifically growing due to tariff grandstanding? Hardly.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Mexifry is a dummy. Don't expect any real adult argument from him.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The expectations of future prices are affected by expectations of the future. No doubt.

    The problem is that the market signals are all pointing in the direction of the tariff in question not happening.

    How do you explain soybeans and Boeing trading higher than they were the day before the tariffs against them were announced?

    It certainly isn't explained by the expectation of tariffs against them in the future.

    It's explained by expectations that the tariffs probably won't happen.

  • I can't even||

    So you don't have contracts and they're looking for an excuse to jack prices. Dealing with that is the job description of Procurement.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: I can't even,

    So you don't have contracts and they're looking for an excuse to jack prices.


    Yes, we have contracts and who doesn't look for excuses? Yet those are not the only signals and Trump is providing a very good excuse.

  • TuIpa||

    "I work in Procurement"

    Stealing out of cars is working in procurement I guess.

    But honestly, Ken at least offers graphs that support his point, all you do is screech "TRUMPISTA!!!" and wonder why people think you belong in a home.

  • TuIpa||

    And honestly... what the fuck is a "trumpista"? It's not clever, it doesn't make sense, and every time you use it you make yourself look stupid senile, but you can't stop.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Re: Tulpa,

    And honestly... what the fuck is a "trumpista"?


    It stands for "economically illiterate dolt who blames everyone from immigrants to trade for his mediocrity".

  • TuIpa||

    So, it's what your wife calls you during sex?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Mexifry, you are the doltiest dolt in doltville. In fact, I hear the other dolts have proclaimed you king shit dolt of all the other dolts.

    Seriously, your commentary about economics, immigration, etc. is laughable. You are a punchline to a bad joke. The dumbest Trump supporter is a god compared to you.

  • vek||

    "economically illiterate dolt who blames everyone from immigrants to trade for his mediocrity".

    Soooo somehow illegal Mexicans with an average education level of the 8th grade are supposed to be a HUGE boon to the US economy? And they aren't going to drive down wages for our own less than brilliant native born, who still none the less are far more educated than the illegals?

    Gimme a break. All these low wage immigrants do only one thing that could arguably be considered good or useful to certain classes: They drive down wages.

    That's it. So if you're working class or lower middle class, and aren't in favor of that, they have a ton of other negatives on all classes, and you don't even like the one "upside" because it fucks you.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "It's a political cliché that people vote with their wallets. That may hold true even for a president who smashed so many other traditional notions of how to get elected."

    There's nothing cliche about price signals, and price signals in the market for both soybeans and Boeing stock have been telling us that although there is a risk of a trade war, the market believes those tariffs are unlikely to happen.

    Why should we look at a New York Times reporter asking soybean farmers whether they like having their crops hit with tariffs when we can look at market signals instead? Have you ever heard of Adam Smith, Mises, Hayek, or Friedman? You should definitely check them out sometime.

    P.S. Boeing is also trading above where it was on April 4 when Xi announced retaliatory tariffs against them.

    http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/b.....lldown=off

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    "If he doesn't understand what he's doing to the nation by doing what he's doing, he's going to be a one-term president, plain and simple," Robert Runck, a fourth-generation farmer, informs the paper.


    Trumpistas didn't vote for Trump for his sound economic policies. They voted for him because he said more than half of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, and also because of "wall". All of a sudden these same Trumpistas are shocked, shocked! at all the tariffs going on here.

  • TuIpa||

    They voted for him because he said more than half of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, and also because of "wall"

    Why don't you provide that quote again so we can make fun of you for being a liar/illiterate.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    I'm neither, and what he said was unequivocal and direct. The man did not speak in riddles, so to say I misunderstood is evidence of your own dishonesty, not of my problem to understand spoken words.

  • TuIpa||

    Post the quote then, because you look like you're hiding it now, after two chances.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    "Mexico is not sending their best. They're not sending you, or you. They're rapists, they bring crime, they bring drugs, and some, i assume, are good people".

    That's the quote. He said in no uncertain terms that more than half of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, as "some" can mean nothing but half minus one, at most.

    How exactly did I get it wrong? And I've posted that quote perhaps thirty times already since 2015. The quote hasn't changed.

  • TuIpa||

    "How exactly did I get it wrong?"

    When you said this.

    "He said in no uncertain terms that more than half of Mexican immigrants are rapists and drug dealers, as "some" can mean"

    I'd he said it in "no uncertain terms" as you claim, you wouldn't have to be interpreting it you stupid illiterate fuck.

  • TuIpa||

    Seriously, what kind of fucking ignoramus posts a quote, claims it says something in "no uncertain terms" then is so fucking stupid and deranged that he doesn't realize he is admitting it is his interpretation, WHILE STILL INSISTING IT IS BEING SAID IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS.

  • TuIpa||

    "as "some" can mean nothing but half minus one, at most."

    That's not even factually correct you stupid illiterate fuck.

    some
    səm/Submit
    determiner
    1.
    an unspecified amount or number of.
    "I made some money running errands"
    2.
    used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.
    "she married some newspaper magnate twice her age"

    Do they not have dictionaries in the third world shithole you come from?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know damn well the message that Trump was trying to convey. That Mexican illegal immigrants are, IN THE MAIN, bad people with violent tendencies. He used a broad-brush characterization of all of them, then tried to equivocate by saying "well, not really ALL of them are horrible, some of them are okay".

    "They're rapists, they bring crime, they bring drugs, and some, i assume, are good people"

    THEY - a broad characterization of all

    SOME - a small minority subset of THEY

    If I said:

    "Apples are green and tart. But some are red and juicy."

    I am conveying a message that I believe most apples are green and tart, but a small minority of them are red and juicy. Same deal here.

    This is what Trump did and still does. He scapegoats foreigners, and in his victory, revealed that scapegoating and xenophobia really are at the heart of modern conservatism.

  • TuIpa||

    "You know damn well the message that Trump was trying to convey."

    No very stupid person, I do not have mental powers that allow for telepathy.

    However, very stupid person, this was about what Trump SAID.

    You seem to have the same problem with words as Mexican.

  • TuIpa||

    Hi I'm chemjeff, I have TDS and want people to know it.

  • TuIpa||

    "Buuuuut I JUST KNOW IT'S what he MEANT!!!"

    Shorter chemjeff

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Anyone with a fifth grade knowledge of English language and grammar understands the meaning that Trump was trying to convey. But you are going to pick nits and stir up shit because that is what you do.

  • TuIpa||

    "Anyone with a fifth grade knowledge of English language and grammar "

    "Buuuuut I JUST KNOW IT'S what he MEANT!!!"

    Shorter chemjeff

  • TuIpa||

    "the meaning that Trump was trying to convey."

    And AGAIN, because you are very very stupid, this is about what he SAID

  • Jerryskids||

    Tell us the one about how it depends on what the definition of "is" is again, I always liked that one. Trump literally said he was referring to the ones being "sent" by Mexico, I'm assuming he has some evidence that Mexico empties its prisons and insane asylums by exiling the inhabitants to the US, maybe even dumping them off at the river or something?, but he wasn't referring to the Mexicans that come here voluntarily or the great many "Mexican" immigrants who are actually Honduran, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Costa Rican or whatever. (Hey, they all look alike, right?) But you're a brainless sack of shit if you're pretending you're a brainless sack of shit who doesn't know damn well what Trump wanted to imply.

    And more to the point of the post, what the markets and others here are implying by suggesting that the tariffs are not expected to ever actually be put in place is that Trump doesn't actually mean what he said about imposing tariffs on China to which China would retaliate. "It's just a bargaining chip" is what they say. You know what another word is for not meaning what you say? "Lying". Trump is lying. Trump is a liar. Trump can't be trusted to tell the truth. Trump is a bull-shitter and a con man and a fat-headed loud-mouth.

  • TuIpa||

    "I just knowwwww what he meannnnt"

    shorter Jerryskids

    protip: get an edtor

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Hi, I'm Tulpa, I'm a shitposter who is going to stir up shit and deliberately try to make people mad at me because I want everyone's attention to be focused on MEMEMEMEME, since I am a sad, sad individual who has nothing better to do in life.

  • TuIpa||

    "Hi, I'm Tulpa, I'm a shitposter who is going to stir up shit and deliberately try to make people mad at me "

    Says the clown who got permabanned from a website I still post on.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I've been banned from more than a few places. But I'm not at all surprised that you're one of the shitposters from Ace's place. That seems to be the crowd that he has attracted nowadays. The 4chan juveniles and the Schlichter-types who are more than a little trigger happy to start shooting liberals.

  • TuIpa||

    "Oh I've been banned"

    So you can't even insult people without being a hypocrite!

  • TuIpa||

    "I am a sad, sad individual who has nothing better to do in life"

    Aw, proving you wrong hurt your feelings.

  • TuIpa||

    Hey lil jeffy , why don't we go take this up over on Ace of Spades?

    Ahahahahahahahaahahhaha

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So which one of his co-bloggers are you? CBD? NDH?

  • TuIpa||

    You think you have enemies THAT important?

    Ahahaahahhaahhahaah

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I would not call Ace's co-bloggers "important", no. Just sycophants mainly.

  • TuIpa||

    and yet they live in your head.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You didn't prove a damn thing.
    Except, that you are a world-class asshole.

  • TuIpa||

    Should I get the corgis?

    ahahahahahaahhahahah

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Go right ahead. I am long over being through with that place. Go ahead and just copy-paste this whole conversation over there if you want. I really don't give a shit.

  • TuIpa||

    He's "over it"

    ahahahahahahaahahah

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    OH TULPA, YOU FINALLY FIGURED ME OUT!
    I so miss Ace's place! I'll do anything to be welcomed back! I'll buy a MAGA hat! I'll consume only news from Breitbart and Daily Caller! I'll record and watch Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs every night! I'll buy guns and speak darkly about throwing liberals out of helicopters! I'll change whatever principles or views that I have in furtherance of whatever it takes to "Defeat The Left By Any Means Necessary"! I will promote every MAGA Nationalist narrative that I can think of and call everyone who claims to speak for "decency" as cucks and traitors! I so miss Ace's place with its decrepit website, lack of threading, lack of any searching functionality, built on an alpha-version blogging platform that wasn't even state-of-the-art in 2003! Ace, if you're reading this, please, please welcome me back!

    Actually, no. Ace can go fuck himself, and most of his commenters and co-bloggers can do the same.

  • TuIpa||

    Protest more, ma'am.

    omfg you couldn't be more upset about it if it had fucked your girlfriend.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, clearly you are very angry over being banned. Much like a toddler having a tantrum and in desperate need of a nap. You also argue at that level

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh I was angry for a while. Now, I realize it was all a big mistake to hang out there in the first place. Ace is an emotionally unstable man-child who can write well. That's about it.

  • TuIpa||

    "Actually, no. Ace can go fuck himself, and most of his commenters and co-bloggers can do the same"

    up until this very moment is a while now I guess...

    God damn you're an emotional wreck!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Baiting and trolling, baiting and trollilng...

  • TuIpa||

    no one cares about your sex life

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You should sue your parents for child abuse. Clearly they raised you horribly wrong.

  • TuIpa||

    I've done better than that sad ass sex life of yours!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Giving anonymous blowjobs at the bus terminal doesn't count.

  • TuIpa||

    No you can count it, it's probably the highlight of your resume.

  • TuIpa||

    psst (this is why you got permabanned!)

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    CBD, it's you, isn't it?

  • TuIpa||

    omfg he still thinks he matters....

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I think it must be you CBD. You've come here before to taunt me. What is the matter, things a little slow around the office this afternoon?

  • TuIpa||

    Bro, you don't actually rate a co blogger. put down the crack pipe!

  • TuIpa||

    You know what, why don't you go ask CBD...

    OH WAIT!!!

    AHAHAHAHAHAH!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Maybe you are Ace himself, who knows. I wouldn't put it past him. I never really could figure out what Ace actually does all day. I don't think he has a real job. Does he just hang out at free wifi hotspots all day?

  • TuIpa||

    ahahhahahahah omfg that's some serious narcissism!

    and... you responded to me. that is some serious delusion to think someone set this up just to troll you. don't go near schools please!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh don't worry, I think you are a general-purpose troll.

  • TuIpa||

    and ace and two co bloggers ...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Ace struck me as a drifter. No firm purpose in life, just going with the flow. He does have a bit of a gift for writing, but being asked to write in any sort of professional manner seems like too much of a burden for him. I don't think he actually wants a real job. He wants to be a responsibility-free bohemian. That's fine I suppose, but I don't know what kind of future that leads to. Maybe Ace should think a little bit more of the future, perhaps that would lead him to grow up and accept some responsibility in his life.

  • TuIpa||

    "Ace struck me..."

    no one cares, but damn, get over it

  • TuIpa||

    he's never gonna fuck you j, let it go

  • Elias Fakaname||

    When has he 'scapegoated any legal immigrants? Ever? Of course he hasn't. He's properly goes after illegals. He's right, you're wrong, and it pisses you off.

    This is what you do. In your continuing failure, reveal that dishonesty and lawlessness are at the heart of modern open borders advocacy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Let's see, how about his proposal to end chain migration? Chain migration is LEGAL IMMIGRATION and yet he wants to limit that. Why exactly?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    His quote was also in the context of illegals. Not the people who respect our immigration laws. And he's right.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That most of them are rapists and murders? You think he's right about that?

  • TuIpa||

    He didn't say most. I don't understand why you have to lie.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That was the message that he was conveying.
    Anyone with a fifth grade knowledge of English grammar understands this.
    You won't acknowledge it because you are a lying shitposter with no integrity.

  • TuIpa||

    "Anyone with a fifth grade knowledge of English grammar understands this."

    Then why are you having such trouble?

  • TuIpa||

    "You won't acknowledge it because you are a lying shitposter with no integrity"

    Ace of Spades disagress!!

    ahahahahahhahahahaja

    permabanned!!!!

  • TuIpa||

    "the message I filtered through my fever-dream TDS delusions = what he said"

    shorter chemjeff

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Jeff, you have no educational or intellectual superiority to rely on to make any such statement. Now go away, we're all very busy here and have no time for your childish nonsense. M'kay?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    "Widgets are square. But some are round."

    Anyone who has passed the fifth grade will tell you that in this phrase, I am claiming that a majority of widgets are square, but a minority are round.

    Dishonest Trump-humpers are the only ones who claim that he meant something else. While, ironically, simultaneously AGREEING with Trump's actual meaning of illegal Mexicans being violent criminals.

  • TuIpa||

    "Anyone who has passed the fifth grade will tell you that in this phrase, I am claiming that a majority of widgets are square, but a minority are round."

    Jeff, admitted 5th grader.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When you pass the third grade, please let us all know. Maybe then you can have an intelligent conversation.

  • TuIpa||

    see Jeff, that's the kind of straight on, low quality garbage that got you permabanned.

    No wordplay, no flair, no attempt, even vaguely, at creativity.

    "You're in 3rrrrrrd grade!"

    Take a moment to gather yourself, deal with being angry over your permabanning, and muster please.

  • silver.||

    Man, apparently medium-small political blogs are serious business.

  • TuIpa||

    ikr?

    like, I didn't realize Jeff would take it so seriously, did you see that wall of text?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know what they say about academic politics? "The fights are so vicious because the stakes are so low." It is much the same in this case.

  • TuIpa||

    no bro, you're fighting. I'm making fun of you.

  • TuIpa||

    hey, you should consider changing your name to

    "chemjeff, I'm over her but obviously not over her"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So why don't you tell us some more about yourself. What do you stand for?

  • TuIpa||

    making fun of you. right now I'm sitting though.

  • vek||

    Look, as somebody who is part Mexican, and from California I can tell you hands down that illegal immigrants are not amazing people. They're not all horrible people, but they're frankly mostly just the dregs of Mexico.

    Mexico is a wealthy country by global standards, and most of the moderately smart ones stay there because they can have a pretty decent lifestyle. The ones that come to the US legally (as original applicants, not chain add ons) are usually some of the best Mexico has to offer... And the ones that come illegally are usually the lowest on the totem pole. They're not BAD people per se, but they're the kind of people we would consider pretty worthless people if they were born here. Dish washers, janitors, burger flippers etc. These are NOT impressive career opportunities. The reason they do these things is because they're not smart enough or qualified enough to do anything more.

    In a post industrial economy, we simple don't need to be importing millions more dish washers. Especially since we can't even create enough low end jobs to employ our own native born low IQ people. This is pretty simple stuff here people!

  • vek||

    Also, for a large minority of them, their kids DO turn into thugs. In the last town I lived in in Cali there were no black people. Basically just whites and Mexicans. Not a single white person was involved in anything one could consider "gang" activity... Yet tons of Mexicans were. In other words this entire small town of 70K people would not have had a single "gang" member in it if there were not a flood of illegals.

    Hispanic crime rates nationally are way higher than white crime rates. The only reason they can argue they're lower than "native born" people is because blacks are lumped into those numbers! Using black crime stats to compare a group to is kind of like saying somebody is taller than Danny Devito... It's true, but it's NOT a great accomplishment.

    So it is a FACT that where illegal Mexicans have moved in en masse they have tended to increase crime. I have seen it with my own eyes, and nobody can try to tell me otherwise because I know better.

  • Devastator||

    He insinuated that most border hoppers are rapists and murderers though he does admit some of them might be good people, implying the majority are criminals of the worst variety. Statistics however don't show that however, but you'll never hear Trump admit something like that.

  • vek||

    Too bad Hispanic crime rates are far higher than whites... Both legal and illegal lumped together. They're lower than blacks, but that's not very friggin' impressive since American blacks are about the most crime prone human beings on earth.

  • RoyMo||

    The farmers voted for him in part because of the clean water rule. That is even more damaging to ag

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The New York Times has dispatched a reporter to soybean country—specifically to Cass County, North Dakota, the nation's top soybean-producing county—to see what farmers think about Trump's trade skirmishes with China."

    I've got a great idea for a story.

    The New York Times should send a reporter to Arizona and survey a bunch of NRA members about whether they want their children to be shot in school. Then, next week, the New York Times can run a front page story about how even NRA members in Arizona plan to vote against Trump because he didn't ban assault weapons.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Speaking on topic to your OT...

    I find it strange that the following lawsuit hasn't happened:

    Someone is shot in a gun-free area. The gun-free area has no provisions to ensure it is gun-free, just a sign saying "gun free". The person sues on the basis that he/she was basically turned into a sitting duck with no means of self-defense but without a corresponding increase in security by the imposer of the gun-free regulation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Does the law require permit holders to leave their guns outside if there's a "gun free zone" sign? Suing someone for following the law in such cases, especially if employee safety is an issue, is going to be a tough sell.

    And if you don't know what "gun free zone" means, I think that's on you anyway. Was there a metal detector? If not, then . . .

    P.S. My comment was squarely on topic. It was criticizing the basis of the piece. That was as biased a survey as can be--asking soybean farmers if they want to be hit with tariffs--and concluding that average people in South Dakota will vote against Trump because of their answers is absurd.

    It rises to the level of fake news.

    The survey I was talking about is very much the same. The New York Times would be selling fake news if they were telling people that NRA members in Arizona are voting against Trump because they don't want their children murdered in a mass shooting, and the New York Times is selling fake news by claiming that soy farmers are going to vote against trump over soybeans tariffs because it's hurting them in the wallet--despite the fact that soybean prices have rallied to above where they were before Xi announced the tariff on soybeans.

    My post isn't off topic at all.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Ken has obviously read enough of these stories to identify the basic template: The Common Man in Republican Country is angry with the party because they are not supporting the latest Reasonable Democrat Policy Proposal, and this Portends Doom for the GOP in the next election.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    +1 permanent Republican majority

    look it up if you're too young to remember

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record, I expect the Democrats to take the House come November.

    Given the information we have right now--both from the markets and President Xi's continued concessions on trade (which Reason hasn't been reporting) and China's apparent support for denuclearizing North Korea--I don't expect Xi's retaliatory tariffs to happen.

    I also expect that if Trump loses reelection, it won't be because he took on China. That actually plays well to swing voters in swing states, no matter what the New York Times says about soybean growers in North Dakota.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    The New York Times should send a reporter to Arizona and survey a bunch of NRA members about whether they want their children to be shot in school.


    I don't want tariffs. How about that?

  • TuIpa||

    No one cares.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    And that's why Trump has the base he has.

  • TuIpa||

    Well, that and clowns like you who lie about what he says.

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    I haven't lied about what he said. Trump himself has lied avout what he says just a few days ago, and then throws anyone he can under the bus for it.

  • TuIpa||

    No, you claimed he said something he didn't say, and when asked to support it, didn't.

    You lied, you will continue to lie, and it's hilarious to watch you unravel.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Mexifry is just a silly lying ignorant bitch.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't want tariffs either.

    They're unlikely.

    It really shouldn't surprise an anarchist to hear that politicians like Trump and Xi are full of shit.

    Why do you find it hard to believe that they're full of shit about this?

    I think maybe there's a cognitive bias that makes us think threats to things we care about are more serious than they would seem otherwise.

    When you live in Texas, North Korea's sabre rattling seems ridiculous. Maybe not so much if you live within mortar range of the DMZ.

    Same thing with trade and other issues, I'm sure.

  • silver.||

    "I think maybe there's a cognitive bias that makes us think threats to things we care about are more serious than they would seem otherwise."

    I read this essay after another reasonoid posted it. You've probably already seen it, but it expresses a similar sentiment. It's easy to tolerate things that I don't really care about, but I will dig in my heels on certain pet issues and not even realize it.

  • Bearded Spock||

    I would be willing to bet the current per bushel price of soybeans that Mr. Runck is a local Democrat Party official.

    That's usually how these type of articles are written: the NYT or WaPo dispatches a reporter out to the Hinterlands of Red America not to research a story but to gather evidence to support whatever narrative the paper ispushing at the time.

    That's how they are able to find so many crusty old male lifetime Republicans who fought in Viet Nam and voted for Reagan, but who are now leaving the party because of its stance on gun control or LGBT issues.

    And what's all this Strange New Respect in the Times for Karl Rove? Didn't he play the part of Goebbels to BusHitler just a decade ago?

    And if course Reason, being rife with Never Trumpers, gullibly assumes this is a serious, objective article.

  • creech||

    If registrations in N.D. are public record, what would it take to investigate Mr. Runck's party affiliation?

  • kevrob||

    ND hasn't had voter registration since 1951, and has an "open" primary. 22 states don't have registration by party. Neither MN nor WI have registration by party. It's that "Progressive era" political culture in those states.

    https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_in_North_Dakota

    Kevin R

  • Brian||

    Wow: the NYT suddenly cares about North Dakota. Weird!

  • The Last American Hero||

    Perry White: Kent, get your ass out to flyover country. We need you to find a Democrat and do a piece on how Red States are turning on Trump.

    Clark Kent: Well, I was going to visit family in Iowa next week, maybe I could do it there.

    Perry White: Nah, we used Iowa last time. Go to Dakota.

    Clark: North or South Dakota?

    White: There's two?

  • kevrob||

    Since the 1978 film, Kent's been Kansan. Before that, the state where the Kent farm was located was indeterminate. In some stories, Smallville was in the rural part of the state Metropolis was in, so, somewhere in upstate New York? It was mentioned as being in IA on the radio show, and Lois was supposed to have a cousin Louis who worked in the Hawkeye state.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallville_(comics)

  • RoyMo||

    Let's just say given the Golden Age time period it was Winnemac, but since Dorothy was from Kansas it became Kansas

  • Michael Hihn||

    But what has Putin told him to do?

  • TuIpa||

    Needs more bolding and textual schizophrenia

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Stop posting as Hihn. You're not Hihn. You couldn't begin to fill Hihn's diapers.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Honestly, this website should be debunking horseshit from the New York Times, not propagating it.

    Everybody makes mistakes, but it's important that when you do, you take a step back and make sure you understand why--so it doesn't happen again.

    Maybe you think we're all a bunch of trolls, but it isn't really about us.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Times was merely getting some grassroots stuff to the widely reported anger on the damage Trump's tarriffs will cause in the rural midwest, ... which IS reported here.

    The retaliation by China will be particularly damaging as we export a lot of crops there . Soybeen farmers will be DEVASTATED. if Trump doesn't stop his ignorant bullying. China's tariff on our soybeans will destroy our largest export market, over a billion bushels per year.

    Here again, we see the damage from Trump bellowing and bullying, nstead of negotiating. I mean, how STUPID is it to assume there'd be no retaliatory tariffs to wipe out his delusions of reversing a trade imbalance. Remind me. Didn't he campaign on being such a brilliant negotiator? Baseball bats are not the bets tools for deal-making.

    Fox Business has some more details.

    Might this be like the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- lots of fire and fury .. which he took back a few days ago?

  • TuIpa||

    I guess you forgot to log in as Roger, that's your sane sockpuppet.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Man you're stupid....

    ...we see the damage from Trump bellowing and bullying, nstead of negotiating...

    You do realize that the only difference between bellowing/bullying and negotiation is your perception and the end results?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Honestly, this website should be debunking horseshit from the New York Times, not propagating it.

    What's the horseshit? That some people in ag coungtry are worried about the impact of Chinese ag tariffs?

    I think there's a lot of conjecture in the article, but I don't think there is anything that is outright false, do you?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Let's see what other articles they didn't write. ..

    Some people in Amish country are worried about the second coming.

    Some people are worried Democrats plan to bad all guns and forcefully confiscate them.

    Some people are worried illegal immigrants are destroying the country.

    Some people were worried the LHC would cause a black hole.

    Some parents fear child abduction and murder by stangers.

    Some people fear energy drinks are addictive and drug like requiring regulation/banning.

    Some people. ..

    Seriously, I could go on for days. The question is why are they reporting concerns which are highly unlikely to happen while ignoring all other unlikely events that "some people" believe.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Except this article was about soybeans and tariffs, not guns or illegal immigration or black holes or the Second Coming.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I think there's a lot of conjecture in the article, but I don't think there is anything that is outright false, do you?"

    It isn't only the conjecture. The premise upon which the conjecture is based is horseshit, too.

    Telling people that because NRA members don't want their children shot at school, they'll vote against Trump is conjecture.

    Asking NRA members whether they want their children shot--in the first place--is horseshit, too.

    You asked soybean farmers whether they want soybeans hit with tariffs--like really?!

    Did you ask them whether they want their homes burned to the ground, too? Their question is also ridiculous.

    They didn't just sit in their offices and assume that soybean farmers don't want their crops hit with tariffs. They went to South Dakota to really find out!

    LOL

    You'd think these reporters were talking to people from outer space.

    If there's one aspect of this question that doesn't need independent verification, it's that soybean farmers don't want their crop hit with tariffs.

    P.S. The conjecture itself was enough to call it horseshit.

    P.P.S. No mention of what's happened to market prices on soybeans at all? I'd understand that coming from the New York Times. Are we not libertarians?!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well I don't know Ken. Perhaps a soybean farmer might say "I support Trump so much that I'm willing to take a temporary hit in my soybean sales if it's for a greater good". Or perhaps a soybean farmer might say "I'm not worried about soybean tariffs because I can easily switch to another crop that isn't as likely to be affected by tariffs". Or perhaps a soybean farmer might say "I don't believe in the Fake News about soybean tariffs, it's a plot by the Deep State to fool us good honest downhome Americans!" There's a lot of potential responses. Many people on the right are often complaining that coastal elites ignore the opinions of Heartland Americans, so here is a case when the Coastal Elite New York Times went to Heartland America to ask about soybeans and you still criticize them. What could the NYT do (other than just going out of business) that you would not complain about?

  • vek||

    The fact is that if they talked to more than a handful of people they almost certainly got some of those responses... But if they did, there's no way in HELL they'd report them.

    I, as a business owner, and as a consumer, would in fact be willing take it in the pants a bit with some tariffs if it meant we broke Chinas back and got them to actually open up their market to American companies. So there ya go!

    We have the upper hand here. Our pain will be small and short, but the gains for us long term could be great and long lasting. That sounds like a very worthwhile strategy to attempt. Even if it fails it's no big loss... But if you succeed it could be AWESOME. Low risk + high reward is as good as anybody can hope for. Lots of people who aren't morons understand this.

  • Hank Phillips||

    People may vote with their wallets but they buy and sell according to preferences and hatreds. Catholic Brazil does a land-office business exporting meats to Mohammedan countries eager to do less business with The Great Satan. Marxist ideologues are pushing "sweatshop" boycotts on the theory that people are happier starving than earning themselves a living and someone else a profit. Tariffs mainly increase smuggling, hence libels, other forfeitures and predatory confiscations. Internally they have caused a Civil War here, but, compared to prohibitionism or the income tax, little in the way of financial ruin except possibly for lobbyists.

  • Sevo||

    OT
    Losers lost and keep on losing:

    "Democratic Party sues Trump, Russia, WikiLeaks over 2016 email hack"
    [...]
    "...the Democratic National Committee filed suit on Friday against President Donald Trump's campaign, the Russian government and WikiLeaks for allegedly engaging in a conspiracy to damage the Democratic Party during the 2016 presidential race..."
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/
    donald-trump/dnc-sues-trump-russia
    -wikileaks-over-2016-email-hack-n867801

    Lose an election, sue the winner. Maybe the courts will reverse the vote.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The DNC is one of the biggest crybabies in all of time and space.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pro tip: "Tariffs are a tax on goods and therefore bad, but cutting corporate taxes must be balanced against expenditure reductions" literally makes no sense.

    It's the height of economic illiteracy that would make Paul Krugman proud. Either you don't believe that taxes should be cut without those cuts being balanced against expenditure reductions, in which case the same principle should hold for tariffs, or you are stupid enough to believe that somehow there is a difference between tariffs and taxes, which there isn't.

    The only difference is that you get to mock Trump for raising tariffs while pretending like tax cuts are somehow bad. Why not just support the tax cuts and oppose the tariffs? So many of you are infected with the same disease of TDS as the writers here. Do try to make sense.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But it isn't an inconsistent position to state "I don't believe taxes should be cut without an offsetting reduction in government spending, but I also don't believe tariffs are the correct way to pay for government spending".

    Plus, it's not like the tariffs we are currently talking about are any sort of good-faith effort to try to cover the budget deficit. It's a way to use a type of tax as a means to punish a perceived adversary.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed. But the majorly of the people currently hating on Trump for these potential tarrifs, are the same people who claim any tax cut will kill sick and injured if not offset.

    So, to that audience in particular, it's a relevant question: why is it OK to do this revenue stream from the government without requiring offsets as they have argued in the recent part were required for other proposed tax cuts?

    Won't change anything of course, but it definitely shows their hypocrisy.

  • Just Say'n||

    Explain to me how it makes sense to say: "I don't believe in these taxes for reasons, but these are OK". Are we pretending like corporate taxes and tariffs have totally different effects on consumers and workers?

    I really want to hear the explanation here, because this will be fun.

  • kevrob||

    Duties on imports for the purposes of funding publicly-owned infrastructure at ports-of-entry and to pay for such inspections as are actually needed for reasons of health and safety would be fair. Those could be considered fees, rather than tariffs, though. Who needs more Zika-bearing mosquitoes? I'd minimize the impact by privatizing airports and as much of a seaport as possible.

  • zombietimeshare||

    "He's going to be a one-term president, plain and simple."

    You can't beat something with nothing. And the current lineup of Democrats, added together, still equals nothing—or less.

  • Variant||

    Honestly can't see this hurting Trump:

    - Every administration and trading partner has tariffs. The media wants to make a big deal about these because they've suddenly gotten religion on free trade (or maybe it's something else???)
    - Seems likely that the countries affected by the tariffs will make concessions and avoid them in the end
    - Trump's base is protectionist - the tariffs are a positive in their eyes
    - Doubtful the doom & gloom prognostications come to pass

  • vek||

    Sooo the best policy is to always lay down in any conflict... Even if you have the upper hand, and your pain will be small and short. Like no tradeoff for a greater goal or win in the future is ever worth it?

    Am I getting that right?

    You people are idiots. This thinking is WHY we have jacked up trade deals with China and everybody else in the first place. If we'd demanded they dropped their tariff wall in order for us to allow them to sell into our country with low barriers, we wouldn't have had all these problems. It's the same bad logic with illegal immigration. We didn't enforce the law for decades, so now it'd be "mean" to kick people out we allowed to be here illegally for 15 years... When if we'd just done the correct thing up front it would be a non issue.

    The problem is, with bad mistakes made in the past, sometimes it can be rough to straighten them out in the short term... But it beats letting a problem go on forever!

    Grow some brain cells guys. I don't like tariffs, and would prefer proper free trade, but you're never going to get that with a country like China without twisting their arm a bit. We have all the leverage in that situation. Our politicians in the past made bad deals, but that doesn't mean we can let a fucked status quo continue forever.

  • Barry Gold||

    To borrow an old saying, From Runck's mouth to God's ear.

  • jaastark||

    great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online