The RV industry is against tariffs on Chinese Poop.

JaxDad wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."

This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.

But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.

The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is. The fields producing grains and other ingredients are owned primarily by large corporations, heavily divested into equity groups, foreign assets, etc. If your everyday local farmer has any part in this, their fields, equipment, and resources are probably heavily subsidized by some corporation that's selling to the bread industry. Still, he's selling his grains through a broker who will set the pricing based upon industry price indexes (controlled by the mega corp).

To say a farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel may even be an over-estimation.

Wow, I’m not sure where all of that came from, but that’s urban myth territory right there!

Next we’ll be hearing those corporations all have only robots and trained chimpanzees running the equipment not a single human employee!

The TRUTH of it (according to the USDAj is that family farms own and operate 96.4 percent of the crop-producing farms in the U.S.

Pricing is based on world markets, we are all familiar with the Chicago Mercantile system.

The reality of it is that no ‘Mega Corp’ these days wants to explain to shareholders why they have billions tied up in owning dirt. That level of debt or cash investment together with higher labour costs would make it cheaper to just buy from the open market.

I'm not sure how it is in Toronto, but you should visit some of the farms I've been to. Yes, there are numerous family farms that exist which play a part in the supply chain. But in many cases, even those farms are subsidized nearly completely by the so-called mega corp. There's actually a neat documentary about farms (can't remember the name) where the farmers discuss how they are required to conform to standards by the buyers, which in many cases they can't do. However, the buyer (or some subsidiary thereof) is happy to provide loans and resources. Then you're stuck in a revolving world of obligations and commitments. But in some cases, you're forced into it if you want to sell your product. And don't think ole Joe Farmer calls up Marita bread and says he has a load of grain to deliver. It has to go through the brokers, who work with the corps and buyers.

I'm not saying that any of this is good or bad, but it just that its not always as it appears.

colliehauler wrote:
Everyone is against pollution, the largest container ship produced as much pollution as 270,000 cars in a year hauling Chinese Imports to the US.

I read recently this was due to continued use of the dirtiest heavy fuel oil and there is pressure to switch to more refined diesel. Article was pointing to a spike in automotive diesel as a result.

Or they might go LNG

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gas-conference-shipping/marine-shipping-sector-eyes-lng-to-meet-clean-fuel-rules-idUSKBN1JO1FD

WTP-GC wrote:

The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is.

I think you've been brainwashed and I challenge you to produce a reference from a credible source that shows what percentage of "farmers" are just employees of a big corporation.

I've been in and around farming for about 70 years now and based on personal experience, I think that WAY over 50% of farmers are small to medium sized independent operations.

WTP-GC wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."

This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.

But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.

The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is. The fields producing grains and other ingredients are owned primarily by large corporations, heavily divested into equity groups, foreign assets, etc. If your everyday local farmer has any part in this, their fields, equipment, and resources are probably heavily subsidized by some corporation that's selling to the bread industry. Still, he's selling his grains through a broker who will set the pricing based upon industry price indexes (controlled by the mega corp).

To say a farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel may even be an over-estimation.

Wow, I’m not sure where all of that came from, but that’s urban myth territory right there!

Next we’ll be hearing those corporations all have only robots and trained chimpanzees running the equipment not a single human employee!

The TRUTH of it (according to the USDAj is that family farms own and operate 96.4 percent of the crop-producing farms in the U.S.

Pricing is based on world markets, we are all familiar with the Chicago Mercantile system.

The reality of it is that no ‘Mega Corp’ these days wants to explain to shareholders why they have billions tied up in owning dirt. That level of debt or cash investment together with higher labour costs would make it cheaper to just buy from the open market.

WTP-GC wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."

This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.

But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.

The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is. The fields producing grains and other ingredients are owned primarily by large corporations, heavily divested into equity groups, foreign assets, etc. If your everyday local farmer has any part in this, their fields, equipment, and resources are probably heavily subsidized by some corporation that's selling to the bread industry. Still, he's selling his grains through a broker who will set the pricing based upon industry price indexes (controlled by the mega corp).

To say a farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel may even be an over-estimation.

Exactly!

fj12ryder wrote:
"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."

This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.

But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.

The first problem I see is that the farmer isn't who you think he/she is. The fields producing grains and other ingredients are owned primarily by large corporations, heavily divested into equity groups, foreign assets, etc. If your everyday local farmer has any part in this, their fields, equipment, and resources are probably heavily subsidized by some corporation that's selling to the bread industry. Still, he's selling his grains through a broker who will set the pricing based upon industry price indexes (controlled by the mega corp).

To say a farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel may even be an over-estimation.

"I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents."

This really does sound wonderful, and considering how little wheat is actually in a loaf of bread probably was likely true.

But in all honesty, who will believe it? How often are we lied to, prevaricated to, and have the truth sidestepped around? And then we are told that if the price of bread went up a nickel it would all go to the farmer? No one believes it, probably least of all the people behind the study. They know the farmer would be lucky to see a penny of that nickel, if he saw anything at all.

memtb wrote:

blofgren wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
Tariffs and one dimensional thinking.


Whirlpool

Exactly. At the end of the day, all tariffs do is raise the cost of goods for the consumer.

Unless it puts American labor on equal footing! Yes there will be cost increases, but quality will “likely” improve and some of your neighbors may have a job to go to!

I’ll take a little financial hit, to help improve our nation!

I recall a study done a few years back on ways we could ‘spend’ our way out of the recession. There were several instances where really small increases going straight back to a producer could have a HUGE trickle down effect. One item really jumped out at me, adding $0.05 to every loaf of bread, this going straight back to the farmer would DOUBLE his income. FIVE cents.

The vast majority of people said no.

People are all for ‘good jobs’ and ‘good wages’ until they have to pay for them..

How many small town retailers went out of business, and stopped selling domestic products, when a Wally-world came to town?

How many of the WM’s do you think closed because nobody shops there? Try to find something produced on this side of an ocean in a WM other than perishables.

Big talk rarely results in big results........

memtb wrote:

blofgren wrote:

wilber1 wrote:
Tariffs and one dimensional thinking.


Whirlpool

Exactly. At the end of the day, all tariffs do is raise the cost of goods for the consumer.

Unless it puts American labor on equal footing! Yes there will be cost increases, but quality will “likely” improve and some of your neighbors may have a job to go to!

I’ll take a little financial hit, to help improve our nation!

A lesson of the Whirlpool experience is that tariffs can work against each other and higher costs mean higher prices, which in turn make for lower sales.

Tariffs don't improve quality, just cost of production and cost to the consumer. The money just goes to govenrment. A tax. If a tariff is required to make a business competitive, it will be required to keep it competitive, meaning it won't go away.

That can be good or bad depending on your point of view but one thing is sure, they will drive up the cost of living.

Everyone is against pollution, the largest container ship produced as much pollution as 270,000 cars in a year hauling Chinese Imports to the US.