Threats of retaliatory tariffs prompted by Trump have cost Iowa pork industry $560M

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

Concerns over retaliatory tariffs from Mexico have cost Iowa pork producers roughly $560 million, the Des Moines Register reported Friday.

The newspaper reported on Friday that Iowa pork producers could take another hit if Mexico follows through on its threat to impose a 20 percent tariff on hams and pork shoulders from the U.S.

Producers in the state already face a 25 percent tariff on pork exports to China. But duties from Mexico — the largest export market for American pork — could put further strain on producers. 

 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/390412-threats-of-retaliatory-tariffs-prompted-by-trump-have-cost-iowa-pork-industry

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Well,  there’s always collateral damage. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Really cant figure out from the article how a possible tariff has already cost them 560 million

 

""While the possible tariffs from Mexico would hurt U.S. pork producers, it would ultimately drive down the cost to consumers, the Register reported""

New Study Shows Pork Production Growth Boosts Economy in Rural Iowa Communities

 

http://www.valleynewstoday.com/agriculture/new-study-shows-pork-production-growth-boosts-economy-in-rural/article_385ff084-0d15-11e8-bf05-abdb8eaec020.html

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Really cant figure out from the article how a possible tariff has already cost them 560 million

 

""While the possible tariffs from Mexico would hurt U.S. pork producers, it would ultimately drive down the cost to consumers, the Register reported""

New Study Shows Pork Production Growth Boosts Economy in Rural Iowa Communities

 

http://www.valleynewstoday.com/agriculture/new-study-shows-pork-production-growth-boosts-economy-in-rural/article_385ff084-0d15-11e8-bf05-abdb8eaec020.html

 

      True, it doesn't really explain anything. Then again I still haven't seen an article that explains how the Trump tax cuts will pay for themselves. Yet many seem to accept that as fact.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

49 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

      True, it doesn't really explain anything. Then again I still haven't seen an article that explains how the Trump tax cuts will pay for themselves. Yet many seem to accept that as fact.

I wasnt aware I had ever said his tax cuts would pay for themselves. The did stimulate the economy but the debt is still growing. I do think they are a better idea than Bush/Obama massive stimulus programs which flushed a lot of money down the drain and went straight in the pockets of a lot of special interests. 

 

You should hear the the car guys that were in it in 08, talking about what a joke cash for clunkers was.

[jg121783 3,915]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Really cant figure out from the article how a possible tariff has already cost them 560 million

 

""While the possible tariffs from Mexico would hurt U.S. pork producers, it would ultimately drive down the cost to consumers, the Register reported""

New Study Shows Pork Production Growth Boosts Economy in Rural Iowa Communities

 

http://www.valleynewstoday.com/agriculture/new-study-shows-pork-production-growth-boosts-economy-in-rural/article_385ff084-0d15-11e8-bf05-abdb8eaec020.html

That is what I was trying to figure out. How does a non existent tariff that might not even be put in place in the future cost anyone any money? Seems like a misleading title to play to the weak minded people that can't read beyond an article's title.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I wasnt aware I had ever said his tax cuts would pay for themselves. The did stimulate the economy but the debt is still growing. I do think they are a better idea than Bush/Obama massive stimulus programs which flushed a lot of money down the drain and went straight in the pockets of a lot of special interests. 

 

You should hear the the car guys that were in it in 08, talking about what a joke cash for clunkers was.

 

  I wasn't suggesting you sad that. Just that news articles often make claims without explaining the how or why, likely because the journalist doesn't know either.

 

  I agree with what you said about the economy and the debt. Unfortunately, I suppose no one would get elected by outlining a real plan for tackling the debt, since the promise would basically be how much it's going to hurt. It's still an issue for me. My kids are going to get stuck with all this one day.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

That is what I was trying to figure out. How does a non existent tariff that might not even be put in place in the future cost anyone any money? Seems like a misleading title to play to the weak minded people that can't read beyond an article's title.

 

  The Hill isn't one of the sites you usually link to, so I realize why you are familiar with the concept of misleading, they are actually not. If you had taken the time to look at the linked article in the Des Moines register it did summarize - an already existing 25% tariff on exports to China, an impending 20% to Mexico leading to drops in pork prices. It's not really hard.

 

  By the way, I've seen you lamenting the lack of responses your posts get on several occasions. Just a suggestion. Refrain from calling people weak minded, insane or having mental disorders all the time and you will probably find people more receptive to discussing actual issues with you. As with the previous concept, not really that hard.  

  

Edited June 3, 2018 by Steeleballz