Soybean tariffs
33 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - April 4, 2018, 9:23 a.m.
By mcfarm - April 4, 2018, 10:04 a.m.
Like Reply

as they already had a 13% tariff on our beans does it really change all that much? Of course we have certain loonitics that actually are accusing Trump of starting  a trade war....some right here on this site. Look, China cheats, China got caught. Playing paddy cake with the likes of Obama, Kerry, Clinton and halfbright is not going to happen

Beans now nearly 30 cents off their lows

By frey_1999 - April 4, 2018, 9:32 p.m.
Like Reply

farmers keep trying to twist this trade disruption ( at least for now ) as not donny dictators doing

Farmers who try to cover for trump are only encouraging him to do more to hurt themselves but I get it you bought what the narreciest was selling and now feel like a fool so you deny that it is what it is.

All we heard as this was being talked about is how China could not afford to tariff beans they need them or they will starve. Well guess what they are less than a generation removed from eating crickets and rice they will cut one or two meals of pork to prove a point that they are done being pushed around by some half wit tyrant.

besides you can and many have raised hogs without soybean meal they will be fine. 

and lastly this will have long term consequences as China will make sure that they have other avenues of production 

Brazil just got a $2.50 price increase in their beans and $12.50 beans will bring on production.

So you farmers keep giving donny dictator a free pass Im sure he will talk nice about you as he runs the RFS straight up you keister.

By MarkB - April 8, 2018, 1:06 a.m.
Like Reply

Who cares? We are traders, not policy makers. We make money no matter how the market moves. Up or down. The only reason the "why" is important, is in determining the future trend. China can choose to starve themselves if they want to, but it makes no difference in our stance. We trade with the trend. As long as the market is moving, it doesn't matter.

By cutworm - April 4, 2018, 11:42 a.m.
Like Reply

Varney on fox news reported that the Chinese bought beans on the break today. 4-4-2018 at about 11:25 am. 

Any truth to that?

By rayjenkins - April 4, 2018, 12:26 p.m.
Like Reply

Likely  talking about the export sales from yesterday that were reported this morning

By cutworm - April 4, 2018, 1:42 p.m.
Like Reply

thanks Ray

By Jim_M - April 4, 2018, 1:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Are US farmers collecting any subsidies from the US government these days?  

By cliff-e - April 4, 2018, 2:04 p.m.
Like Reply

Trump announced steel and aluminum tariffs many days ago but wasn't willing to wait and see the overall effect they would have before issuing even more tariffs yesterday. U.S. commodity producers are getting screwed by Don the Con's lack of diplomacy. Place the blame squarely where it lies.

By mcfarm - April 4, 2018, 2:30 p.m.
Like Reply

yes as any good liberal knows by heart, anytime we catch a foreign country cheating it automatically becomes America's fault......unless there is a D by his name of course

By TimNew - April 4, 2018, 3:39 p.m.
Like Reply

Like it or not, we are on the verge of a trade war and it is Trump's creation. We'll see if he can make it work for us,  but history is not encouraging.

The fact that he's targeting only China  mitigates the impact,  but I still don't back the idea.

But,  I have to admit, from the rhetoric of the talking heads and the majority of the left, Trump is the 1st one who ever did this.

By Jim_M - April 5, 2018, 1:46 p.m.
Like Reply

If we are providing subsidies to farmers, isn't that essentially "dumping" grain on foreign shores?  

By Lacey - April 5, 2018, 4:09 p.m.
Like Reply

Bring it on.  Somebody finally sticking up for America. Short term pain for long term gain

 Last 3 administrations sold out our middle class.  He is trying to bring some of it back.  350 billion against us.  What do we have to lose.  I am sorry for you farmers, but it is a commodity

  Only so much produced worldwide.  Those buying from Brazil will have to buy from us. Wait till China slows down.  Don't think they hold back a revolution, like we barely did.  Their derivative pile is just as bogus as ours.  Comes down to where do you think your money is safest, China or the US. Why are all professionals in China trying to leave.  Can't even breath the air in their cities.

By frey_1999 - April 5, 2018, 10:41 p.m.
Like Reply

Your lack of understanding on the Grain trade and animal feeding is unbelievable.

China cuts feeding of soybeans ( soymeal ) by 5% replacing that with many different Items. Then sources another 5% of their demand from SA vs USA thats 10% drop in us exports with out really causing dramatic price rise in Brazil this in turn drops US demand by 10% and that goes straight to carry over.  there is your short term damage. Add to that they push SA to up production by 15 %  and there is your long term damage to the US farmer.

US farmer can no longer afford new equipment cutting the need for Steel and Steel mills shut down. Just killed the so called advantage for the Steel tariffs add to that the fact that because of the higher prices of Steel so as to Keep the steel mills open the Auto Industry and the Heavy Equipment and ship building industry is priced out of the world market and boy these tariffs are a good thing.

By Jim_M - April 6, 2018, 6:55 a.m.
Like Reply

That's right.  Replacing 20 million tons of grain is that easy.  Just call 20-30 other countries to fill your order and get all the chaos that goes along with it.  

Of course as Brazil's grain prices explode so does the rests of the world.  So then even with a 25% tariff on it, US grain prices are still pretty competitive.  Of course Brazil could always buy US grain and sell it to China....why wouldn't they?  They would make money hand over fist.

By cliff-e - April 6, 2018, 7:30 a.m.
Like Reply

Donny the Dictator seems to have forgotten history, never studied it or, more likely, chose to ignore it completely and U.S. producers get screwed again.

Tariffs have the same effect as an embargo and once again the affected country will get supplied cheaper grain thru 3rd party sources just like what happened in 1980.

By Jim_M - April 6, 2018, 8:09 a.m.
Like Reply

You're kidding...right?  The supply/demand of grains of the 80's pales in comparison to what we have today.  If SA hadn't increased their farm acreage in the last 10 years (getting close to triple what they had) we would all be starving to death.  

By Lacey - April 6, 2018, 9:45 a.m.
Like Reply

This is more than just grain.  Somebody has to put a line in the Sand.  The progressive globalist brought this upon themselves.  Let's go back to the 50's, where America consumes mostly what we make.

By cliff-e - April 6, 2018, 10:11 a.m.
Like Reply

It isn't always flat price that sells the's reliability and reputation that can make the sale.

Cash soy prices in Brazil are rallying in the face of lower CME values. Apparently they have a better trade relationship with China now and US agriculture has fallen victim to Trump's ineptitude and become a "whipping boy" once more. Rural economic activity will be harshly affected by Donny Dictator's tirade.

By Lacey - April 6, 2018, 8:46 p.m.
Like Reply

I would go as far as to say 100% tariffs on all China imports and a declaration that we will now start building the factories for all those former imports.  Our economy will explode as we replace those overseas jobs here at home. In addition, declare new education opportunities to man those jobs.  Why pussyfoot around.  We grow more than we consume and could adjust to our current level of energy production.  China, less so.  I bet some on this forum will disagree.

By cliff-e - April 7, 2018, 9:14 a.m.
Like Reply

Tariffs=sanctions=embargos etc... Lessons that have either been forgotten, never learned or ignored. Paragraph 4 is very telling.

By metmike - April 7, 2018, 10:22 a.m.
Like Reply

Tariffs=sanctions=embargos etc


And the dynamics of each will be different depending on the situation and era.

You are only concerned about the price that you can get for your corn/beans.

1. After China's announcement on the tariff on our crops very early Wednesday morning, the price spiked lower. The price immediately following that over reaction was the low of the week. Corn actually closed a bit higher for the week compared to where it was trading previous to the announcment, beans a tad lower but recovered the losses. After digesting the actual effects, the market decided they would not be game changing for US prices.

2. Prices in the 1980's were MUCH lower than they are today for all crops. The average price of beans in 1982 was under $6 and corn got down below $2 during the Fall of that year.

But in 1987, corn was under $1.50 and beans under $5!!!!

Current prices are more than double that and will only piunge if the US has a huge/near record crop. If the US has below trend yield, prices will go higher.....tariff or no tariff. 

3. This is a global market. When SA has a huge bean crop, world supplies go up, prices go down there and in the US and vice versa.  Unlike 1982, when their production did not matter much, Brazil and Agentina combined produce more beans than the US now. 

4. China will go to where they can get the cheapest prices. If that's SA. then thats where they go regardless of a tariff and US prices have to come down to be competitive. If the tariff makes SA beans cheaper and they buy boatloads of SA beans............the demand causes SA bean prices to spike much higher........above the price of US beans with the tariff. Being a global market, much more than 1982, the cheaper US beans get bought by the market(whether its SA to restock their supply, China or the rest of the world). Unless China decides to liquidate their animals and stop eating meat so they don't continue with the MASSIVE demand of beans that MUST be bought, then the world demand/supply for beans do not change.......just the dynamics of how it works out.  In the end, the US will get their beans sold and maybe SA gets a higher price but the US farmer will not be hurting.

However, if CO2 accelerates higher and global warming continues, the continuing increase in world production from this could pressure prices. However, it appears that we may have already  hit a temporary peak in the warming. If so, then the world will see why the slight/beneficial warming has been very good and cooling is bad. 

If we do have cooling, bad weather and crop adversity, I predict it will be blamed on human caused climate change from burning of fossil fuels..........just like the recent cold weather and numerous N'oresters have been.  

We are taught that all bad weather is caused by human emissions of CO2.............whether its too hot or too cold. No snow or lots of snow. Too wet or too dry. 

Funny thing is that while we hear this, the past 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate in the last 1,000 years(since the last time that it was this warm, during the Medieval WARM Period) for most life on this planet and for growing crops by a wide margin.

With regards to the tariff. Personally, I am against it and for free trade. However, those that use it as another reason to bash Trump and those that are over reacting and those that are comparing it to previous situations in a different world...........need to actually look at the above facts to have a better perspective of how it 'might" play out.

It could turn out different of course. Trade wars are unpredictable. Uncertainty is scary but worrying about the worst case scenario does not seem justified by the facts above. 

By metmike - April 7, 2018, 12:12 p.m.
Like Reply


As usual, you take a thoughtful, substantive post by somebody and, rather than make a thoughtful, substantive reply, you try to turn it into a way to start an argument/battle with a personal attack on that person..............often having 0 to do with the post.

Yes, this is me analyzing your patholigical behavior again. You make it fun and amusing. 

As for apologizing for sharing the nickname that previous moderator Alex had for you "The Priick" you are just asking for me to share it again and the previous post by you is exactly why he referred to you as that..........when he was constantly frustrated by your antics that resulted in numerous suspensions. 

He is probably looking down on the forum from heaven right now and laughing to himself "yippee, the priick can't bother me anymore"

Your delusional interpretation of what is confidential exists only in your mind to be used as ammo to try to pick a fight with analysis and for free again.

Feel free to say more and dig your hole deeper and deeper. I will either ignore you if I don't have the time or notion or analyze your counter productive posts for amusement. 

Did vandendplas actually type this?

"We are taught that all bad weather is caused by human emissions of CO2..."--MetMike

We are?  No one ever taught me that.  That statement is preposterous."

Good one. Pretending that all sorts of extreme weather, hurricanes, droughts, floods, snow storms, wild fires, super storms, N'oreasters, snowstorms, record heat, record cold is not being sensationalized and blamed on human caused climate change.

Sometimes your zeal for fight picking causes you to state really dumb things.  

More  free psychoanalysis. You make the best subject. 

By Lacey - April 7, 2018, 1:50 p.m.
Like Reply

There is something I want to alert the forum about.  Zerohedge yesterday had a piece on this, and that is the ring of fire has lit up.  It has to do with the reversal in polarity of our poles.  Unlike the sun which reverses it's polarity every sunspot cycle or 11.5 years, the earth does it every 250,000 years or there abouts.  The earth is shaped like an egg not a round ball.  Whatever gravitation forces make that happen, earth will shift it's crust to maintain that shape.  The North Pole is moving 8 -10 miles a year from it's prior position, thus the crustal shifting to maintain the egg shape. It can take 300 years to 1500 years to complete.  Sometimes it occilates.  In addition, the sun is very quiet right now, very low sunspot activity.  That is causing a pressure drop which allows the cold from outer space to reach the surface at the poles, where it spreads out like molasses.  The weakened  magnetic field also contributes to the pressure drop.  The potential is scary, think "The Day After". I hope not, but we haven't seen this in 250,000 years give or take 50,000 years.  In the last little ice age, which was not accompanied with a polarity reversal, the population of Great Britain, did not get exceeded in numbers for 400 years. That little ice age followed on the heals of the mideaval warm period which lasted 150 years and had temperatures warmer than today.  Only 20,000 years ago the Neanderthal had the edge over homo sapiens when the ice was flickering.  We are going back 12 - 15 times earlier.  If nothing else, vents in the crustal plates will be opening that have not been opened in a long long time.  You farmers will be selling every bushel of whatever you grow no matter how high the price even if my wildest fears are not realized.  Go Trump.  MAGA.

By metmike - April 7, 2018, 4:19 p.m.
Like Reply


These are the articles that you are referring to:

While the chance of a magnetic field pole flip is tiny in the short term, it's inevitable at some point.

Same thing with the threat for a large asteroid to strike the earth. Though it probably won't happen in the next 50 years, it might and it WILL happen eventually.

Both these high impacts events would be catastrophic to humans, possibly wiping out a large portion of the population. Should we worry? Not really but we should prepare, even if the chance is .01% of it happening during our life time.

Instead, we want to flush a trillion dollars down the toilet "fake" preparing for human caused climate change.

The last 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate in the last milenium. The increase in atmospheric CO2 has resulted in a benefits to harm ratio of around 20 to 1.  It's a beneficial gas for all life on the planet. 

The only place where dangerous warming takes place is on speculative(broken) global climate models that have all been too warm. 

The +1 deg. C of warming the past century has been almost entirely beneficial.  The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm rescued life fron dangerously low levels of CO2. Plants were on the verge of shutting down. Crop yields and world food production is up 26% just from the added CO2. 

If we suddenly dropped back down to 280 ppm, over a billion people on this planet would starve to death in the following few years as the food supply ran out. Food prices would at least triple, maybe much higher than that. 

This is the biggest "fake news" scandal of our a wide margin. This was started by the United Nations in the late 1980's when they created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

The IPCC has served as the worlds authority on climate............every country gets it climate info from them. One of the first things that the IPCC did to hijack climate science was to rewrite climate history. They deleted the Medieval Warm Period from temperature records, that over 100 comprehensive studies and historical reports verified happening. 

They did this to show that current warming(which is the same as the Medieval Warm Period) was unprecedented. A temperature graph known as "the hockey stick" was manufactured to show their new version of climate.

Steady temperatures for thousands of years, then a sudden, enormous unprecedented spike higher in the last 100 years from humans burning fossil fuels.

No more Little Ice Age that we know with certainty happened 300 years ago. No more Medeival Warm Period, 1,000 years ago. No more Roman Warm Period that happened 2,000 years ago. No more Minoan Warm Period from just over 3.500 years ago.



According to them, natural climate never changed for thousands of years....then humans started emitting CO2 and suddenly it caused an unprecedented, dangerous warming along with extreme weather. 

Since the UN designated the IPCC as the central source for every country's climate............this fake climate history was perpetrated with impunity and was the reason used for the bogus Climate Accord.......that would have ZERO effect on the climate.

Seems impossible that such a thing happened. How many people have weather/climate records and atmospheric science degrees to research the truth?

Most climate scientists work for and/or are funded by governments, which in turn, use the IPCC as their climate bible.  Funding doesn't go to study a NON problem or a benefit, as CO2 is in the real world. It goes to fund research that finds human caused climate change. 

We don't study natural climate change the same way that we did 30+ years ago, before climate science was hijacked for the political agenda.

So what is the agenda?

To spread the wealth of the rich countries and create sustainable development:

. The US is consuming too many natural resources. Our economy and growth must slow down. Cheap/efficient and reliable fossil fuels are the life blood of every rich, productive country. Take that away, and you will have sustainable development.

The Climate Accord is the perfect plan to accomplish this. We cut back on our fossil fuels, which slows down our consumption and we give tens of billions of dollars to the rest of the less rich  countries(including China that gets to keep increasing their burning of coal to the year 2030).

Under this plan, the US gets weaker, the rest of the world specific design.........while it does ZERO to effect climate even if their busted theory on the effect that CO2 has was correct, because countries like China get to increase their CO2 emissions. 

Trumps withdrawal from the Climate Accord was the smartest decision, that I have expert knowledge about, ever made by a US president in my life time. 

By Lacey - April 7, 2018, 6:05 p.m.
Like Reply

Met Mike,

I agree with you 100% about co2, and with Trump's decision to pull out.  My point is that the pole reversal has started and is the reason for the increased activity in the ring of fire.  The low sunspot count is happening at the same time which according to the numbers may result in a little ice age like conditions.  All that I believe and have researched in the recent past. Neither event happened together and certainly not with 7 billion on the planet.  I have no idea how quickly it develops but it has started.  Most people do not even know the earth is shaped like an egg.  Not trying to be a doomsdayer.  Just wanted to alert people that it has begun and they are happening simultaneously.  Like all your posts.

By mcfarm - April 7, 2018, 7:46 p.m.
Like Reply

lacey, wasn't "the day after" the usual disaster show  that lectures us on global warming causes all calamities. If so please pick another example, I would not want to give anybody any ammo, they might blow their own head off

By Lacey - April 8, 2018, 10:21 a.m.
Like Reply

Mcfarm, the day after was based on global warming.  The take away from that was the mamoth that had undigested food in it's belly.  The movie got the reason completely wrong.  But the mamoth with undigested food is a fact.  What could cause that. I am building a scenario that explains it. Years ago I spent 6 years reading 25 books or better from researchers in the field to gain a better understanding of what has happened in the past weather-wise. My conclusions are based on that research. Maybe I should have said you farmers may or might be selling everything you can grow instead of will be selling.  You have two simultaneous events happening here, that is my main point I don't have to read about it in a history book to come to my conclusions.  This is nothing but a heads up.

  If you don't buy it, don't read it

By mcfarm - April 8, 2018, 10:35 a.m.
Like Reply

no Lacey I was not saying that. I will keep a open mind unlike the left who would not dare consider any other possible conclusion as they have said time after time the debate is over....we do not need any more facts because the debate is over.....that is exactly the kind of talk we do not need

By cliff-e - April 8, 2018, 11:47 a.m.
Like Reply

This is "The day after" that I recall. It had nothing to do with climate but did slow down the war mongers governing at the time.