Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Standing with Saudi Arabia

Water Cooler
#41

To me, a person or a nation does not get wealthy or stay wealthy if they do not look out for themselves. If I was a billionaire, I would still try to negotiate every deal I could. If I can’t do it personally, due to time or other constraints, I’ll hire someone to do it for me. If I find out that person is giving concessions at my expense to one of their buddies, they’re out the door.

Same rules should apply to a nation. Collectively, we are electing officials to represent our behalf. If they put another nation’s interests ahead of the ones who are paying to represent them, they should be out the door too.

I’m a nationalist, like Trump because I’ve done a lot of deals in my life. When you are sitting there at the table, you will here so many promises. Do this deal at a super cheap price or loss and I’ll bring you more business, I’ll send my friends and family, ect ect… 99% of the time, it never happens.

IMO globalist are idealist who believe that goodwill will reciprocate. I think the more deals you do in real life, the most pessimistic you get at promises that can’t be quantified and I think that’s why Trump operates the way he does. Trump likely used the same tactics building his real estate empire so he knows what’s going on.

#42

Fair enough, fair enough. Don’t agree but seems we’re recognizing the central facts/conditions but just coming to different conclusions.

#43

I’m really hoping this trade war changes the Ag industry -something I have been a critic now for my entire adult life. This is a topic that never comes up but why does the US not produce it’s own food? The vast majority of crops produced in the US are soy/corn and as a result, we are forced to consume terrible GMO products and pilled out livestock. More so, from a defense perspective, what is the surest way to cause catastrophic damage to a population? Starvation. Blockage the food network and watch them crumble. The easiest defense to this, produce your own food.

Finally, what’s neglected about the “poor” farmers is those who are truly hurt but the chinese tariffs are the massive, very profitable, farms that dominate the industry. This whole notion of a poor farmer is a relic of the past (depression era). Yes, there are small farmers who are poor but that’s just because the consolidation of major farms coupled with importing nasty ag have squeezed them out. Solution: prop of more small, local farms near major metro areas. Stop allocating 90% of crop land to non-edible produce. Come down hard on the big 6 pesticide companies that have been poisoning our food and minds with the bs research that their methods are safe.

#44

What are you talking about? I grew on on a small family farm in PA driving tractors and managing fields (couple hundred acres) and my family owns land in the midwest. Plus I cover ag firms, none of this is remotely accurate. The US is among the top three global producers and exporters in nearly every bulk agrarian category. The US, Brazil and Russia are literally the food suppliers to the world. The US is also the leading producer of GMO products, no other agricultural market in the world uses GMO at as high of penetration rate as the US, we’re not importing GMO products, we’re producing them. Anything we import is simply because of preference. Imports have nothing to do with anything regarding US farm economics. What’s killed US small farmers are two things, first being millennials that prefer office work where they can complain about other people not farming and secondly if you’ve ever walked and looked at a midwestern field you realize the futility of growing in any other area. The geology is night and day, yes, it’s also a scalable fixed cost business no longer relying on oxen. So small farms died off strictly because the economics don’t support it and with transportation and new tech fields in PA are largely not required. For the record soy and corn go in lots of things we eat directly and the biggest use of soy is also in things we eat indirectly (livestock). Talking about defense needs is ludicrous, shifting crops to virtually anything in the midwest could occur in a period of months given you have multiple harvest seasons on rotation and a massive production surplus.

We’ve got enough on our plate without subsidizing urban elites kale organic kale intake. Yeesh.

#45

^I know you did so please let me know if I am mistaken (that said, so did my family so I know a little about what I am talking about). Tell me, what is the US producing exactly? As for GMOs, that is my point exactly, the produce we do make is shit as is most of the livestock we produce here mainly due to the crop allocation. There is absolutely no reason for corn to be put into everything - in fact its damaging as a whole. Soy does go to livestock but that is just my point, animals should not be fed such feed. Finally, i’d reconsider that thought on crop location, gmos and fertilizing have created not only sterile land, but also superbugs.

I dont know about you, but i know plenty of people who would rather work on the land rather than in some office if the pay could support a household. As for subsidizing, I’d much rather subsidize things i eat such as organic food vs corn & soy beans, wouldnt you?

#46

Dude, you did not grow up on a farm, lol. There may have been some plants somewhere on some land, but it was not a farm.

  1. We produce what is economical as we always have, which includes, corn, soy and basically everything out there. That said, all of your points about us not being food secure, importing the food we eat, etc were all inaccurate.

  2. You’re rambling about GMO’s but honestly those are just your personal opinions. Same goes for the corn and soy, we raised cattle there are a litany of professionals out there involved in animal nutrition, you’re just saying a bunch of things that you think sound nice but it’s really just your own personal unfounded opinion.

  3. The points about sterile land are on the whole bordering on anti-vaxer. Again, literally grew up on a farm house looking out on fields and also have several thousand acres of mid-western land leased to corporate farmers. The land by any metric is not going sterile or infertile from GMO’s or fertilizers. The US as a whole has seen a series of consecutive record setting harvests in recent years with no sign of letting up, hence why we’re still working through elevated grain and soy inventories. This is so far from any semblance of reality.

  4. Yes, lets all subsidize personal interest groups and pseudo science or the luxury whims of coastal elites, lol. World hunger and food prices have been hitting lows because of the advances in production. If you feel strongly about it, break out the checkbook and waste money on organic buzzwords. Many people farm profitably, your point is ridiculous. There are many non-GMO organic corporate farms out there killing it too. What you’re going off about is wanting substandard subsidized farming from the 1800’s. We don’t farm on inhospitable parcels near cities with high fixed costs for a reason, makes zero sense like subsidizing ski resorts in Arizona. Transportation, storage and techniques are there to maximize the geology where the climate and soil content are best suited. If you want to farm, pack your bags, go to Iowa and get started, there’s plenty of work out there for people with actual ag science backgrounds.

#47

^haha ok fair enough to the opening line, I myself did not grow up on a farm.

Points 1-4 i disagree with wholeheartedly especially about GMOs, the feed given to animal livestock, and the crops we grow. I am not an advocate of subsidizing anything but when I need to buy vegis from a different continent along with my beef (primarily australia) i use common deduction to realize we have an issue. I’m guessing you being a corporate elitist, probably have a personal shopper, you haven’t been to a market lately but next time you go have a look at the labels. I bet you’ll see most of the produce coming from south america, the beef coming from mexcio (or if you buy organic, grass fed like myself, itll be new zealand or aussie), and most of the seafood coming from thailand/cambodia (with the exception of salmon).

Just do me this, tell me what percentage of the US farm allocation for vegis goes to anything but corn, soybeans, and wheat and compare that to the average person’s diet, or better yet, compare that to what their diet should be. This isn’t anti-vaxer, tin foil material, although I applaud your attempt at killing the idea by negative implications. And, while on that note, I encourage everyone to space out their kid’s vaccinations instead of doing them within a close timeframe.

Finally, look into GMOS and the correlation to carcinogens. We’ve all been mislead over and over again by false anchors and sadly it is the finance community that tends to not only lag with change, but be advocates of the system that holds us down. I know you’re a contrarian, i like that about you, but this is a subject we should all be behind (unless of course your nanny and personal shopper is being funded by monsanto?) … Jk bro

#48

i have to side with bs on most of the above.

canadian grocery stores mostly have canadian and US products with select items from Mexico and further south but these items are usually better grown in these areas (e.g. bananas, pineapples, avocadoes, other fruits).

also, i have no big issue with gmos as nothing i’ve seen is anywhere near conclusive about them being bad in any way. they improve yields and that means lower cost product.

one thing i will disagree on with bs is that top soil is eroding nearly everywhere due to modern farming techniques. this is why we need so much NPK fertilizers to achieve decent yields but these fertilizers are part of the problem. soy production is reason #1 for eroding soil and soy comes with pests that destroy other crops as well, leading to poor nearby crop yields.

i’m cool with modern farming techniques but think that soy should be banished and corn be used for animal feed not ethanol production…

#49

Produce cannot store like grains and cereals so the reason most of your super market produce in the end of November is from South America is seasonality. The US is roughly balanced on beef as the largest importer and third largest exporter occasionally we become a net exporter under the right conditions. It’s nice that you’re buying elaborate Australian beef but those are coastal elite problems. It’s comparative advantages, Australia and New Zealand is also a comparative empty space as is Brazil. As we speak US beef imports are running about +15% YTD yoy while imports are down. What’s your point about seafood, you want us to raise salmon in North Dakota or maybe strawberries in Iowa?

Asking what percent of US production goes to our diet makes zero sense. We are a massive net exporter, we over produce, so we over produce the crops with the strongest export economics. Beyond that talking about what people’s diets should be and personal views on GMO’s, consumers are speaking with their wallets on their own views and that’s what 's supplied. It’s how capitalism works. If the average consumer cared about GMO’s farms wouldn’t use them. This whole point really just comes down to policy items based on an inaccurate view of farm production and economics melded with POV’s on nutrition. Which is fine for you, but that’s not how policies are made typically.

https://www.drovers.com/article/us-beef-exports-continue-grow-imports-steady

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-demand-for-fruits-and-vegetables-drives-up-imports/

Americans want fresh fruits and vegetables—year-round, not just at harvest time. U.S. farmers grow a lot of produce, but imports are meeting most of the increased demand, especially during off-season months such as April, thus capturing more of the total consumption. Mexico, Central America and South America send the most produce to U.S. regional distribution centers. Some fruits and vegetables have recently become very popular, whereas others remain stable: avocados are way up, persimmons are on the rise and tomatoes are, well, tomatoes.

#50

come on man - what type of capitalism advocates for subsidies as its main attraction, and why subsidize a food that we will not consume? Agriculture is certainly not capitalism and the public makes decisions based on the information that is supposed to be unbiased but certainly is tainted with propaganda from pesticide companies.

Let me paint to you the average cattle operation. They eat grass - their natural diet - until about 6 months and then they are fed a grain mix (corn, soybean, etc.) to fatten them up and quicken the time to slaughter (cuts the time in approx half). Now, cattle are not evolved to eat such material and get sick, usually developing rumenitis. To counteract this, the animals are given heavy doses of antibiotics. To leave aside the entire issue of livestock being the main contributor towards global warming, let us just look into the implications to society. To start, the population eating such USDA meat are consuming antibiotics - largely to cause obesity in cattle so i wonder what will happen to the people who eat it… Secondly, the notion of bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, well that’s a direct implication of this process and results in less efficacy translating to you needing stronger medication. Finally, since the majority of this substance is excreted by both animals and humans, you find a ton of this medication in the drinking water. Does this sound like a process that you want continuing?

Look up research on GMOs (outside the NHI which is corrupt) and you’ll be inundated with research showing that pesticides - glysophate (aka roundup) causes cancer. There is a reason it is banned and yet here in the US were are fed (pun intended) false research that shows not evidence that it doesnt cause cancer, but “doubt” that it does. Ok, cancer aside, look at ocean dead zones and spillage cost associated with this especially as it relates to drinking water. Furthermore, sure you can buy organic, non gmo farmed products but it is very likely the pesiticides sprayed via planes make their way into such foods.

The SAD (Standard America Diet) is a farce and producing economic costs through medicare and medical bills that can easily be avoided. You may say my opinion on nutrition is simply that, an opinion but I can say with certainty that humans should not be consuming the sweet corn, soybeans, and wheat products produced here in the states nor should we be producing it for any consumption.

I find it very challenging for anyone to retort how ludicrous the American Ag industry is. How can anyone advocate that the current process is what’s best for americans? To summarize it all, the American Ag industry is igniting global warming, fueling the obesity crisis, causing ocean dead zones, creating superbugs both as it relates to plants and humans, and leading the soil in worse and worse condition. You can chalk this up to coastal elite problem but food is vital towards survival and thriving and i hope i just demonstrated how it impacts everyone.

#51

Glysophate has been shown to be unlikely a carcinogen within safe amounts (which is as good as anything gets from these tests) and has been shown safe by a range of agencies outside the NHI including the EC’s regulatory body. The pseudoscience claiming otherwise has been debunked repeatedly. What people also fail to recognize is that the chemicals that GMO’s and roundup replaced were far worse on many levels resulting in broadly safer food.

Cattle may cause nitrogen offput but it has nothing to do with the US industry’s practices and everything to do with the fact that we’re consumer massive amounts of meat. Which two posts ago you were illogically advocating for more beef to be raised in the US. These two points you tried to make are completely contradictory like much of your rant. The cattle raising process you described is mostly used by livestock outside the US, in the US most beef is fed soy limited at less than 10% of the diet as an adult and is tested for safe mycotoxin levels to avoid sickness. Use of antibiotics is also much more tightly regulated in the US markets. You’re using a bunch of anecdotal stories unrelated to US farm practices to somehow argue against US farming while also claiming we somehow need more beef raised in the US which makes zero sense.

The dead zones are caused by fertilizers but nothing in any of your rants really has much to do with actually addressing that issue and ultimately you have to choose between feeding the world’s population or having some dead parts of water from algae.

Again, your nutrition views are just your opinion, whether certain or not. Everyone’s with money to waste has some view of what everyone else should be eating that they want to impose on everyone else. Corn, wheat and soy have been dietary staples of civilizations for millennia.

#52

i think the us government should impose a obese tax. with the rationale that when you are obese, you are more likely to have health problems nad be a burden to society in terms of medical bills!

also us agri is subsidized. i think its actually a good thing as it helps incentivize production and lower food prices more. it essentially helps the poor. imo, food is something that should be subsidized by the state no matter what imo.

personally i feel that everything that is considered bare necessities should be subsidized. food, shelter (rent), health care. but this is after having a balanced budget of course!

#53

glosophate not causing cancer will be the equivalent of cigarettes not causing cancer when all is said and done. It’s the pseudoscience produced by monsanto and the quasi science organizations that bring forth evidence of DOUBT that should be the information you are skeptical of, not the opposite. How many times must WE be fooled before you catch on to the game played.

Regarding cattle raising, I don’t know where you dug up such nonsense but as a individual extremely interested in consuming only the best quality food, I can assure you that is not the case both inside the US and neighboring countries (canada being an exception). I am saying we should be raising cattle here in the states using traditional grass fed measures and avoiding antibiotics - that is my point.

As for the deadzones, how naive and manufactured such sentiment is. Your statement that we need to choose between the current process, which supposedly “feeds the worlds population” or having deadzones is an erroneous mindset. These are not mutually exclusive, but for that matter, I am not suggesting we feed the world either. Let me repeat myself, i’d like for the US Ag industry to feed US citizens. How can we accomplish this, first and foremost, stop allocating the vast majority of land to corn & soybeans and do so using sustainable farming methods. Again, the corn we grow is not edible nor is it grown to feed anyone. the soybeans are not consumed directly by humans nor should animals be eating it. So, hypothetically speaking, once you change this landscape you free up 75% of the US farmland to grow actual produce that we will eat.

I think you are brainwashed by your industry so I’ll need to end this conversation because we are getting no where (perhaps revisit over a beer down the line). I’ll end with this, if you are indeed pleased with the current process and deep down see no beneficial changes that can be made, fair enough. But deep down I know you think this entire process - fueled by the fallacy that the current arrangement benefis greater society and not the companies you analyze - is completely insane and certainly, leaving profits aside, no more harm than good. The next presidential debate will center on this topic so remember who brought it to light first.

#54

Me and BS are just getting ready to tuck into a nice plate of soy with corn for lunch. American as apple pie!

#55

agreed, only coastal elites not raised on a farm can pass a delicious scramble of GMO soybean and corn seasoned with glysophate. Yum!

#56

The point about the dead zones is if you’re going to be farming on the same land you are going to have to use fertilizers because the nutrients will deplete. Given the amount of population being fed there will be ocean dead zones globally it’s basic math, nutrients in nutrients out. It is in fact mutually exclusive that we either feed the population or have dead zones. Moving to suboptimal land with less tech will only increase the need for fertilizers which are actually applied much less efficiently in EM markets, typically to suboptimal land meaning higher fertilizer requirements per yield (not acre) since we are talking yield vs population. This is just basic farming, it’s a simple inputs and outputs calculation globally. If nitrogen comes out, nitrogen must go back in or yields will continually fall. We allocate so much to corn and soy because its the most efficient. You can’t even produce beef on a remotely similar scale in the US using grass fed techniques because of seasonality, hence why US beef has been at least partially grain fed for more than 200 years.

All of the methods you’re recommending take multiples more inputs to deliver (5x more acreage for grass fed, 3x more years) so absolute yields will fall. If you try to feed everyone cheap grass fed beef and non-GMO buzzword this, buzzword that, food prices will rise and hunger will reverse the global decline it has experienced since the rise of modern farming.

The reviewed evidence on glysophate is overwhelmingly on my side across even the more stringent EC so you can agree to disagree but yours is based solely on conjecture.

Ag will only ever be a side show in recent debates not that it matters.

Really your rant started with a bunch of facts about US production and infertile land that weren’t even remotely accurate. Then made the point that we import produce from the southern hemisphere in the winter (growing season, mate) to somehow draw a conclusion about US farming not being sufficient (net exporter utilizing comparative advantages). In the end I provided the data showing the majority of produce is still sourced domestically although we do import more in the winter (surprise). In the end, you really just don’t like GMO’s and have a thing for grass fed beef which is fine but could have done without the many straw men leading up to the central point. The vast majority of the world disagrees and is still buying more affordable GMO products despite your POV but that’s what Whole Foods is for. Subsidy or not, the production you’re describing will never be as efficient or meet the same levels of output which is why they’re generally not widely adopted.

#57

Really, no side of gluten? What is this?

#58

I will say this, I would be ok with removing or limiting farm subsidies. Also agree using so much corn for ethanol is not efficient and soy could be curbed (not eliminated). I also would like to see more regulation on meat production. Where I get off the wagon is the GMO = Bad, Grain Fed = evil argument and wholesale turning back the clock a century to the farming techniques that gave us such biblical classics as the dust bowl, famine and literal plagues of grasshoppers.

#59

dafuq happened in this thread