New York farmers call for end to trade war
New York Farm Bureau, along with the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Commissioner, Richard Ball, and Farmers for Free Trade, highlighted today the importance of open markets for the state’s farmers and encouraged a quick end to the trade war that is creating an economic hardship on family farms across New York.
The farmers gathered at the Great New York State Fair, an important celebration of New York agriculture, to discuss their concerns. A number of New York commodities, including dairy, soybeans, wine, maple and apples face retaliatory tariffs in several countries including China, Canada, Mexico and in the European Union.
In turn, commodity prices have fallen on agricultural products. Equipment prices are rising due to the steel and aluminum tariffs, and farmers are concerned about losing long-established markets as countries turn to other, cheaper sources for their food. These losses, in turn, will impact rural communities that depend on agriculture to support their local economies.
While U.S. agriculture has had a trade surplus, the farm economy has not been a bright spot for this country. Net farm income was already down by 50 percent before the trade wars began. When times are tough, this is when this country needs to be looking for new opportunities to expand markets to sell the quality products produced on our farms.
The principle agreement announced this week with Mexico is a positive step in the right direction, but ultimately, we will need Canada to complete an effective NAFTA deal. Farmers also encouraged a resolution to disputes elsewhere, including China.
“We understand that trade agreements may need to be updated, but we have to be careful not to damage the relationships that we already have and depend on,” said New York Farm Bureau President David Fisher. “We are encouraging our leaders in Washington, to move quickly at getting the parties back to the negotiating table, much like we have seen this week with Mexico, and to move forward on improving trade relations with our partners.”
“The tariffs being imposed on our agricultural commodities are compounding an already difficult marketplace and putting New York’s farmers in a precarious situation. Once these markets are lost, we could find it extremely difficult to regain that footing. We have an opportunity here to collaborate with our partners and to call for new free trade agreements and thoughtful, long-term solutions,” said State Agriculture Commissioner Richard A. Ball.
“Farmers for Free Trade is proud to join the New York Farm Bureau at the state fair today to discuss the importance of trade to New York's agriculture and manufacturing industries,” said Angela Hofmann, deputy director of Farmers for Free Trade. “Today's joint event will highlight the price that New York agriculture and manufacturing workers are paying from the trade war and call attention to the need for consistent and fair trade policies.”
“Our farmers are reliable, they are resilient, and they are responsible. They are ingenuitive and they are innovative in producing an excellent product for consumers both stateside and abroad amid a myriad of unpredictable challenges including the weather and ever-changing consumer demand. As steadfast patriots, we look to our government to recognize that our growers already operate in an environment of uncertainty and hope that this administration will facilitate opening the doorway to global opportunities in a way that is good for our country and its farmers,” said Colleen Klein, New York Corn and Soybean Growers Association’s executive director.
“Since the end of May, following Mexico’s announcement of 25 percent retaliatory tariffs on U.S. cheeses, the price we receive for our milk has dropped by 14 percent. To put that into realistic terms for our dairy farm, that is a loss of more than $3,000 a day. Farm families like mine and our dairy farming friends across New York State are asking for a quick end to the trade war affecting our families’ livelihoods and our country’s backbone, the American farmer,” said Johanna Fox-Bossard, Barbland Dairy in Fabius.
“New York maple producers are concerned about trade from two fronts. The tariffs in both Asia and Canada mean a potential loss of markets for American made maple syrup as cheaper Canadian maple syrup moves in to fill the void. In addition, the steel and aluminum tariffs have resulted in price hikes for equipment we need to produce maple syrup. My company alone was forced to increase prices 10 percent, prices that eventually will be passed down to consumers. We need a fix now before there are long-lasting repercussions on New York’s maple industry,” said Dwayne Hill, Shaver-Hill Maple Farm.
" trade wars are good " ... said somebody
" ... and easy to win ... "
"Who knew it could be so hard?" may soon be coming to a trade war near you.
Hmmmm. A new agreement with Mexico in hand. Negotiations with Canada,( a country that has blocked imported milk and milk products) aggressively underway with polls showing Canadiens are willing to give in. Makes the beginnings of the "trade war" look like it has stable legs. The Canadian policy of Supply Management makes the price of Milk, Cheese, and eggs very significantly higher than the prices paid just across their southern border. A large portion of their population has no idea what the policy is and when it is explained to them the majority are ready to scrap it. It seems the EU is also quite anxious to come to an agreement. Hey, does this mean that Mexico WILL pay for the wall? Hmmmm.
" A new agreement with Mexico in hand. "
Not true. If it's bilateral, Congress will have to approve it (meaning the end to the very successful NAFTA). And Mexico has said repeatedly it wants a three-way agreement.
Much of the new language also comes straight out of TPP, so it's not much new and we could have had for all of 2017, but the new restrictions on autos will make new cars much more expensive, which will cost Americans jobs.
Canada: "a country that has blocked imported milk and milk products"
Not at all true. In fact, Canada has been one of our biggest export customers for dairy. Last year, Canadian distributors purchased $792 million in U.S. dairy products.
Canada has supply management. The U.S. has dairy subsidies. It evens out.
Today, as we write, an agreement with Canada looks very unlikely. And if Trump is serious about putting tariffs on Chevy Impalas, that's going to put a lot of U.S. workers out of work who depend on making parts exported to Canada for those cars.
Anything can be nitpicked. I didn't say Canada blocked all dairy trade. But enough so the whining dairy lobby has had shummer doing a two step. And the restrictions on our dairy and egg exports to Canada are hurting both sides. Restrictions that a majority of Canadians didn't really know were causing their products to be so high priced.Restrictions that the Canadian dairy lobby is desperate to keep in place. So Trump, as flawed as he is, is helping both sides. If the farmers don't like what's happening they should find a different crop to peddle. As far as "not true" ,"not true." The sky is not falling. LOL. Neither of these things I wrote is "not true." I don't have the time or inclination to school everyone on the nuances of the whole background, current state, and/or finality of the deals in question. A cursory explanation should have been sufficient. Anyone with enough skin in the game to need/want to know more has only to open the national news as all of this is continuing to unfold.
The "very successful NAFTA." Claim is questionable at best. Very successful for who? American Oligarchs? Good trade relationships are generally a good thing in that it significantly reduces the occurrence of war, and generally promotes understanding. The fairness of deals that affect segments of societies in drastically different ways will always be questioned, hence "questionable at best." The trade agreement with Mexico has far better benefited Mexicans over Americans. If they were a good partner, they would help to stop the illegal migration to our country. Frankly, the deployment of US troops on the Mexican side of the border would make much more sense than the vast majority of current deployments elsewhere in the world.
Yes, there are issues to fix in trade with Canada but a trade war and Trump's posturing is unnecessary and count-productive. There are processes in place to address these issues. You started off by defending the indefensible, a trade war, and now you seem to want to say, "oh, it's more nuanced." There is nothing nuanced, or even informed, about Trump's approach to trade. Even Schumer doesn't want a trade war as much as he likes to defend New York's dariy industry.
NAFTA has added .5 percent to GDP growth every year since it was signed.
Canada has invested $200 billion in the U.S.
1/3 of all exports from the U.S. go to Canada and Mexico.
Since NAFTA was signed, U.S. ag exports are up 350 percent
Nearly 14 million jobs depend on trade with Mexico and Canada and five million of those jobs are a direct result of NAFTA.
Those numbers come from the Republican, REPUBLICAN Senate Finance Committee.
NAFTA has benefited the United States immensely.
The best way to fix illegal immigration is to improve legal immigration. Nobody would need to cross illegally if they could cross legally. We don't need troops on the border. We don't need a wall. We just need an immigration system that allows sufficient numbers of people to cross the border to meet our economic needs.
Shimmer has been doing the dairy dance with Canada for years & getting nowhere. Nowhere! Trump is getting it done. Enough said. And as far as "economic needs." BS! If industries controlled by pigs would pay Americans right for the jobs they illegally enslave ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to do, all would be right. American consumers wouldn't have a problem paying the higher costs to make that happen if the government stuck to governing OUR country and stop stealing our money (taxes) for the constant idiot conflicts within and without of country. Robotic mechanization is coming to do the vast majority of the jobs in question. We are going to have a hard enough time readjusting the mindset of way too many people already. We need less people not more. At this point anything more than an absolute minimum of procreation is quantum pollution. Heaping a hoard of immigrants on top of that is an insanely anti American, anti Humanist idea. Except of course to money grubbers.
All of your "growth" & "GDP" statistics are oligarchy gobbledygoop. Wages for Americans have been virtually stagnant for nearly 50 years!! Yea, lots of part time walmart jobs for our grandmas and gramps who had their earnings stolen to bail out piggy bankers & wallstreet walkers. To rebuild beach mansions of the "rich and famous" for the umpteenth time. I think they actually promote global warming so we will build them new mansions more often as the storms grow in intensity and frequency.
And by the way, please don't blow Republican REPUBLICAN, blah blah BS at me. I'm not foolish enough to be played by the deep state game of devide and conquer. And a simple google of : "American wages stagnant" will render many articles by both liberal, LIBERAL and conservative sides. LOL
A lot of nonsense there to unpack, but a couple of points.
Wages are stagnant because the cost of living keeps going down -- across the board, most goods and services are cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars than decades ago. Americans are better off today because of free markets.
The idea that people aren't going to have work because of robots is dubious at best. People will have different jobs (and they also need to learn to do a better job of creating their own jobs instead of being dependent on the government or employers) but there will also be work.
And without more workers, which will only come through immigration, there won't be enough people to pay for things like social security and medicare as the population ages. And just in general, if you want economic growth, you want immigrants.
Daniel - I thought your comment #8 was pretty much off the wall (a series of rants that did nothing to argue the points Howard had given, outside of your "nuh uh I don't believe the numbers you gave which were cited"....
...and then I saw your "deep state" baloney, and realized what was REALLY off the wall.
Kinda surprised you haven't invaded a pizza place in DC looking for child slaves yet.
I'd say your more likely the perv here Timmy. Only because yours is the bizzaro mind that went there. Also, the idea that you and Howard are (figuratively) massaging each other while trading thumbs up..... As far as discounting the numbers Howard cited, I argued that point in my original post as well as the comments you cited. Those numbers help no one but the thieving, absconding corporate pigs who stole our Social Security and continue to send us deeper into debt to keep us placated with stolen and borrowed money. If you don't know that our government is manipulated from on high, (actually the dregs of the swamp) then (in retaliation only) your an idiot who shoots foolish comments from the lip, without employing the limited brain power God has given you. LOL, duuuuhHuh? And anyone who could give a positive backing of such lowlife, perverted comments are as guilty as the writer.
Howard, your comment about people needing to create their own jobs etc., backs exactly what you're trying to refute. "We are going to have a hard enough time readjusting the mindset of way too many people already." Yes, and less government employees is a good thing in any case. Virtually every job done by a government employee should be contracted to the private sector
Not enough money to pay Social Security as the population ages is more BS. The 1% may escape with the ill gotten gains they have stolen, but the people will take a screwing for just so long. Then the shiza will hit the fan and THEY will not come out smelling too good. So, my suggestion to them is take care of the people from who you have taken so much. Or...
Also, lower costs than a decade ago is multifaceted. A decade ago we were propped up by insane investing that amounted to a ponzi scheme. Resulting in a deep deep recession that was more of a depression. And our dollar value was therefore depleted. Maybe not against other currencies but depreciated nonetheless. The cost/value of goods and services may be a little lower here and there, but that'sbecause more of the people had less money. The influx of inferior products from China, as well as the infusion of genetically modified foods and the fracking of our countries substructure contribute to the numbers you cite.
Timmy try looking up rant in the dictionary. You know, the big book mommy used for the doorstop. LOL!
Too much crazy there for me to unpack. Many, many factless assertions. No substance. Let me know when you want to have an informed, intelligent discussion about economics and trade.
Seems your IQ is lacking. Too deep? Stay shallow.
I’m doing fine in a reality-based world.
Howard. Please tell me the last 3 sentences from comment #7 was just a "tongue in cheek" remark: "We don't need troops on the border. We don't need a wall. We just need an immigration system that allows sufficient numbers of people to cross the border to meet our economic needs."
Are you intimating that an immigration system which meets our economic needs will magically stop the flow of "dangerous/bad people" who come here to: (1) Abuse our social resources; (2) Rob, steal, cheat, rape, terrorize, prey on, maim, and/or murder, law-abiding, hard-working people?
If so, I think your California "upbringing" is manifesting itself.
Your on the right track Ed. His California upbringing however isn't responsible for his distain for American workers. He is a big proponent of slave labor coming in to take our jobs. Most of the people coming over already are living in very substandard housing. Often stacked like cord wood. The work in the fields is long, hot, and dirty. I know because as a child I worked on the muck for Marble, Vereecken, Zambito, Gillard, and Gavenda farms. Temperatures over 100 degrees as we toiled in the gritty black earth. Respite was morning and afternoon breaks, and lunch. All of which were under the nearest tree, as well as nature calls. I didn't have to be out there like the migrant workers I worked with and frankly didn't last long for some of those jobs. Those jobs sure made other jobs from then on much easier to take. Like picking rocks in the Mojave with temperatures in the 115 range. And working on the ice roads at the Kuparuk oil fields on Alaska's North slope at -80 degrees. So, unlike some of the people who are anti unions, I have an appreciation for REAL work and for the fact that it should be compensated accordingly. Not for slave wages. The silver spoon in mouth crowd needs to pay up, and make every job a job Americans want. Not have a traitorous and greedy attitude by flooding the market with slaves.
"Are you intimating that an immigration system which meets our economic needs will magically stop the flow of "dangerous/bad people" who come here to: (1) Abuse our social resources; (2) Rob, steal, cheat, rape, terrorize, prey on, maim, and/or murder, law-abiding, hard-working people?"
Ed, It's impossible to stop something that isn't happening.
Also, it's also a red herring to say that workers are coming here to be slave labor and/or to take jobs. Again, assertions completely divorced from reality.
Links on immigration and crime
Immigrants and social welfare programs:
Immigration and wages:
Advocating for a more realistic approach to immigration isn't advocating for slave labor. If you're really concerned about wages and working conditions for immigrants than you are an advocate for more legal immigration, which brings workers out of the shadows and gives them greater leverage to demand better conditions and brings to bear the same regulatory scheme all employers must abide by ... but the idea that immigrants in this day and age are being underpaid or poorly treated is largely a fiction. The main point here is, if "slave labor" is your real concern, then you're a hypocrite to oppose robust legal immigration. You're just spouting that line as a red herring to cover up some other agenda.
If you care about the American economy, if you want to see more people making more money and living a better lifestyle, then you support legal immigration. Immigrants have always made the country stronger. Immigrants made America great in the first place. And they can continue to make America strong. Wasting billions on a border wall and deporting American citizens because they have brown skin, as the Administration is doing now, is a recipe for destroying America.
Daniel - you disappoint me so much... I thought that anybody so knowledgeable in all those batscat insane conspiracy theories you've been spewing would be well versed in Pizzagate.
Dude - if you are going to go all batscat, you need to go ALL BATSCAT and research what you've been missing.
Daniel, when you have to resort to name calling , very immature btw, any argument you may have becomes worthless. You have nothing so you attack with childhood actions. I get it Daniel, you know what is best and if anyone dares to disagree they should be silenced...... good day to you....
If immigrants take American jobs, how come employers who have traditionally relied on immigrants are finding it so hard to hire workers now?
Here's a podcast on many of the myths and falsehoods about immigration
Finally, back to trade -- steel tariffs are costing Americans $800,000 per job "saved."
And means windfall profits for steel company owners, not so much benefit for steelworkers.
Meanwhile, the trade war is a threat to 11 million U.S. jobs
Tariffs are taxes on the American people. Our taxes are already too damn high but now nationalists want to pile on more taxes. Tariffs and protectionism are also the tools of crony capitalist, paying off favored industries at the expense of everybody else.
Trump lost on his tariff on newspaper pulp (the USITC threw it out), which favored a single paper producer in northeast owned by a hedge fund who's owners contributed to Trump's campaign. What happened to "drain the swamp"?
Cato? LTFOL! So your going to cite numbers from the consummate lowlife oligarchs leading our country by the nose? Koch brothers? I wouldn't trust anything or anyone mentioned in the same breath as those snakes. Let alone a "think tank" created and owned by them. Not that it matters because 1 crime committed by an illegal is too many, but the numbers cited are numbers that had to be redrawn because Texas made a mistake LOL. Yeah they made a mistake by not coming out with numbers the Cato brothers and other Koch suckers didn't like. Check out:
Also you point out that Mexicans could "demand better working conditions" if allowed to traverse our borders freely. So now your pro union? Who's the hypocrite? There are plenty of Americans to do the work, especially if the super bloated government trimmed to anything close to what's right. I think about that every time I drive through a thruway toll booth. 90% of thruway toll takers are not needed. That's not even counting the GI'S who would certainly start coming home where they belong if all illegals were shipped home as we would need the manpower. But of course the corporate thieves would have to pay higher wages and create better working conditions instead of hiding profits overseas.
I like Mexican people. I've met many over the years and they have always been respectful and sometimes even overly gracious. I wish them no ill and in fact think that the US should make serious efforts to bring that country along to where it's people wouldn't feel the need to go elsewhere for a better life. We don't seem to have any problem spending trillions of dollars to bomb countries on the other side of the world into piles of bloody rubble only to spend trillions more to rebuild them. We don't help build Mexico because they are a consistent feed of slave labor.
I'm willing to give a helping hand to virtually anyone in need but I only have a few close relatives and friends that I would invite into my home on an indefinite basis. And I would be trying to facilitate their independence after their situation improved.
Sniveling about name calling? I was quite reserved in my responses. You seem determined to bring out as much attitude as possible tim. You are the perv who suggested that I look for child slaves in a reported den of iniquity. Something I really had a difficult time with as it made me want to POP your ears. So yes I resorted to firing back at your salvo in kind. Words can't really do you justice for spewing such vomit but I'll let bygones.
Dave Spalding, I'm not much for name calling and I suggest that you read the prior comments where you will find that I don't start such bs, but it will always be met in kind. And when attacked I aim to win. Who's immature.... by the way? And gee, why no criticism of the others who are indulging? Are you just fawning over the local media star? Like Tim?
My previous post came out twice so I'll use this to say that I haven't had a chance to to read your last comments Howard so... later
Daniel, you can't refute the facts so you attack the source.
Cato is a solid think tank. Alex Nowrasteh is as good as they come in immigration research. Since you can't refute the facts, I'll just assume you concede the argument.
I don't know how you got "pro-union" out of anything I said.
The main point was made after discounting the Cato brothers. "Not that it matters because one crime committed by an illegal is too many". So if the illegal immigrants were home where they belong they would be responsible for ZERO crime in the US. Again I have to point out that YOU indicated that immigrants could "demand better working conditions." Are you expecting that things would improve if they wrote letters or go groveling on their knees? No, the only effective way to get the chain above to give up some significant amount of the money generated from their labor, is to organize. Which is to Unionize. Again I'll point out that real wages when adjusted for inflation have been stagnant for around 50 YEARS, as unions have disappeared.
You made no point because you made no factual assertion.
Cato brothers? Who's that. Never heard of them. If you mean the Koch brothers. It was only one Koch involved in founding and financing Cato. That would be Charles Koch. That was in 1974 with the leadership of Murray Rothbard, a preeminent libertarian scholar of the time. But then, that has nothing to do with the quality of the research. Since you can't deal with facts you go for the ad hominem argument. Attack Cato all you want. It doesn't change the facts. The only reality it distorts is your own.
The idea that if an illegal stayed home is a specious argument on many fronts. First, it's completely devoid of any connection with reality. You're never going to fully eliminate illegal immigration even if my plan were followed. It's just human nature. Second, it's an argument that completely ignores the economic reality that immigration is required to sustain this country. It's the argument of a nativist.
There is zero reason to believe that unions are required to improve working conditions. Henry Ford raised wages and instituted a forty-hour work week without a union. People throughout this land are making good money in jobs with good benefits without unions. When people have the power to negotiate for themselves without fear of deportation, they can better represent themselves as individuals.
Your assertion that real wages have been stagnant ignores benefits -- health care costs being the largest one, not to mention higher costs for employers for workers comp insurance and other employee-related mandated expenses. It also ignores increases in the amount of PTO provided employees over time. Further, as pointed out earlier, it totally ignores the reduction in cost on a per-hours worked basis of many of the things we consume.
Here's more on why a straight "wages are stagnant" calculation gets things wrong (from the free-market-oriented Human Progress).
"True, adjusted for inflation, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees in the private sector (closest approximation for the quintessential blue-collar worker that I could find) have barely changed between 1979 and 2015. In October 1979, average hourly earnings stood at $6.51 or $21.20 in 2015 dollars. In October 2015, average hourly earnings stood at $21.18 – slightly below the inflation adjusted 1979 level.
Looking at the average hourly earnings, however, ignores at least three very important factors: expansion of non-wage benefits, fall in the price of consumer goods and rise in price of services, such as education and healthcare."