China Bought $12.6 Billion in U.S. Soybeans Last Year. Now, It’s $0.

[Say it aint so]

Each week, the Agriculture Department publishes a summary of the latest exports of American crops. Lately, they have all been missing the same thing: The sale of soybeans to China.​

​

Soybeans are the single largest American export to China in terms of value, $12.6 billion worth last year. But as the fall harvest gets underway across the country — 9 percent of planted beans had been harvested as of last week — the country that bought 52 percent of all American soybean exports last year is completely absent.​

Sept. 1 was the beginning of the new marketing year for soybeans, the starting point for big sales. Instead, China hasn’t bought any American soybeans since May.​

The cause is retaliatory tariffs China has placed on the United States, making the price of American soybeans unattractive for buyers there. Throughout the summer, farmers hoped the Trump administration and China would reach a trade agreement that would drop the tariff on their crops, but so far, no relief was forthcoming. --NYT​

​

​

Then there's this:

China prepares for long US soybean stand-off with huge Brazilian imports​

China expands Argentina soybean buying to 20 cargoes​

It is clear China understands it can not depend on the US for what they import the most by all measures. They are multi sourcing with everyone but the US.
All it takes is voters who vote against their best interest to continue to enact that definition of insanity "Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result".
So here we are, just like the last Trump trade war where US soy beans are rotting in their silos, Trump et al are going to have to bail out farmers again.
I mean since he's going to bail out Argentina to the tune of 20B while his voters hospitals close as US farmers take a beat down, it would insane not to bail them out.

And btw, as I mentioned in previous conversations; the Dems are just horrible at messaging. Just imagine if these event took place under Obama or Biden. It would be unison wave of media sprees denouncing and condemning this fiasco. But what does one hear from the Dems? .....crickets.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Each week, the Agriculture Department publishes a summary of the latest exports of American crops. Lately, they have all been missing the same thing: The sale of soybeans to China.​

​

Soybeans are the single largest American export to China in terms of value, $12.6 billion worth last year. But as the fall harvest gets underway across the country — 9 percent of planted beans had been harvested as of last week — the country that bought 52 percent of all American soybean exports last year is completely absent.​

Sept. 1 was the beginning of the new marketing year for soybeans, the starting point for big sales. Instead, China hasn’t bought any American soybeans since May.​

The cause is retaliatory tariffs China has placed on the United States, making the price of American soybeans unattractive for buyers there. Throughout the summer, farmers hoped the Trump administration and China would reach a trade agreement that would drop the tariff on their crops, but so far, no relief was forthcoming. --NYT​

​

View attachment 370883​

Then there's this:

China prepares for long US soybean stand-off with huge Brazilian imports​

China expands Argentina soybean buying to 20 cargoes​

It is clear China understands it can not depend on the US for what they import the most by all measures. They are multi sourcing with everyone but the US.
All it takes is voters who vote against their best interest to continue to enact that definition of insanity "Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result".
So here we are, just like the last Trump trade war where US soy beans are rotting in their silos, Trump et al are going to have to bail out farmers again.
I mean since he's going to bail out Argentina to the tune of 20B while his voters hospitals close as US farmers take a beat down, it would insane not to bail them out.

And btw, as I mentioned in previous conversations; the Dems are just horrible at messaging. Just imagine if these event took place under Obama or Biden. It would be unison wave of media sprees denouncing and condemning this fiasco. But what does one hear from the Dems? .....crickets.

Yep! What up is down and what down is up.
Hopefully we can weather this storm.
Blessings

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

So, basically China is getting soybeans from another country. And China doesn't need to get soybeans from the United States anymore. I guess farmers won't get that money either.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

“Have fun!”

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

There are widespread misconceptions and misunderstandings about free trade and globalization across the political spectrum. Historically, prominent conservative figures such as Ronald Reagan, W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and much of the Republican Party have supported global trade and free-market policies. In contrast, Democratic politicians have often opposed free markets and globalization, influenced by substantial support from U.S. labor unions that resist these economic models. Despite campaign promises, presidents from both major parties have ultimately endorsed and enacted legislation favoring free markets and globalization.

However, public sentiment toward globalization and free trade has remained largely negative among Americans, regardless of political ideology. This opposition stems from uneven impacts; while some individuals benefit, others face job losses or economic disadvantages. Consequently, it is perceived that wealthy individuals generally favor globalization and free-market policies, while average citizens are more likely to oppose them due to adverse effects.

The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions. This development represents a notable change, introducing a politician who actively challenges free-market orthodoxy and advocates for policies intended to support everyday Americans.

There is essentially no difference when Senator Sanders and his supporters refer to the "Top 1%" and when MAGA advocates speak of "elite globalists"; both groups are expressing similar concerns. The underlying message is that free trade and globalism are perceived as detrimental to America, and therefore, the nation must take steps to protect itself from the influence of the globalist top 1%.

President Trump is now in a position to address issues related to globalism and free trade. He is approaching these challenges with determination and the full support of American resources.

MAGA supporters are pleased. If liberals who oppose President Trump considered his stance, they might agree with him, since their preferred politicians like Senator Sanders and AOC also advocate withdrawing from the WTO, ending free trade, and rejecting globalism.

As a lifelong conservative and proponent of the free market, I—and many others—view this movement with shock and mourn the devastation we fear awaits us.

Currently, soybean exports to China are almost nonexistent; corn is next, followed by Wisconsin dairy products, Kentucky and Tennessee bourbon, Nebraska beef, and potentially Maine lobster, all of which may see reduced exports. Most of these products are made by hardworking Americans, not the top 1% of globalists.

What is happening with global trade may be for the better—we need to address this openly.

It may take several years for us to fully understand that while free trade may not benefit every American equally, it does provide advantages to most—from the wealthiest top 1% to cattle ranchers in Idaho and cheese producers in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

At the end hopefully we will have a better appreciation for free market economic policy.

 

[Pommer]

The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions

So, would this make Bernie Sanders conservative?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

So, would this make Bernie Sanders conservative?

Conservatism, as traditionally understood, no longer presence in American politics today. Conservatism ended the day Mitt Romney's lost the election.

 

[Fantine]

Arkansas farmers who voted for Trump now pleading with the president for emergency aid to save their farms

Generations-old farms face closure as rising costs, low crop prices, and severe weather push Arkansas farmers to seek urgent federal help.

en.as.com

Can't say I'm surprised. Can't imagine why they aren't surprised, too.

A farmer is one of the candidates running for Senate against Tom Cotton in 2026. I really don't care who wins, as long as one of the worst Senators in Congress is defeated.

This candidate is not well known but I've heard she's very dynamic--and a farmer. It would be great if farmers had a candidate who supports farmers in 2026.

Democrat Hallie Shoffner officially launches campaign for US Senate against Tom Cotton

United States Senator, Tom Cotton (R-AR), has a new challenger for his seat in 2026.

katv.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

Each week, the Agriculture Department publishes a summary of the latest exports of American crops. Lately, they have all been missing the same thing: The sale of soybeans to China.​

​

View attachment 370883​

Here's what it looked like under Trump 1.0, showing both US and Brazil. Some of the near zero-ness in May 2018 (and this year) is the seasonality of soybeans in the different hemispheres, but yes going into September/October things should be shooting for US exports to China.

A wider view to show the seasonality (and the 2018 disruption to US exports)

 

[Richard T]

Each week, the Agriculture Department publishes a summary of the latest exports of American crops. Lately, they have all been missing the same thing: The sale of soybeans to China.​

​

Soybeans are the single largest American export to China in terms of value, $12.6 billion worth last year. But as the fall harvest gets underway across the country — 9 percent of planted beans had been harvested as of last week — the country that bought 52 percent of all American soybean exports last year is completely absent.​

Sept. 1 was the beginning of the new marketing year for soybeans, the starting point for big sales. Instead, China hasn’t bought any American soybeans since May.​

The cause is retaliatory tariffs China has placed on the United States, making the price of American soybeans unattractive for buyers there. Throughout the summer, farmers hoped the Trump administration and China would reach a trade agreement that would drop the tariff on their crops, but so far, no relief was forthcoming. --NYT​

​

View attachment 370883​

Then there's this:

China prepares for long US soybean stand-off with huge Brazilian imports​

China expands Argentina soybean buying to 20 cargoes​

It is clear China understands it can not depend on the US for what they import the most by all measures. They are multi sourcing with everyone but the US.
All it takes is voters who vote against their best interest to continue to enact that definition of insanity "Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result".
So here we are, just like the last Trump trade war where US soy beans are rotting in their silos, Trump et al are going to have to bail out farmers again.
I mean since he's going to bail out Argentina to the tune of 20B while his voters hospitals close as US farmers take a beat down, it would insane not to bail them out.

And btw, as I mentioned in previous conversations; the Dems are just horrible at messaging. Just imagine if these event took place under Obama or Biden. It would be unison wave of media sprees denouncing and condemning this fiasco. But what does one hear from the Dems? .....crickets.

 

[Richard T]

I hope there is a bail out. But I will suggest that it could be something more sinister if they do not. Perhaps the ultra rich want a farm depression so that they can scoop in and buy up more land on the cheap? It would be a good plan.

 

[Tuur]

So, basically China is getting soybeans from another country. And China doesn't need to get soybeans from the United States anymore. I guess farmers won't get that money either.

China isn't the sole foreign market for soybeans.. It might come as a surprise to some, but the US uses soybeans domestically, too.

For all the handwringing, it also presumes farmers don't change what they grow. Note that US planting time came after Inauguration Day, and tariffs were already expected. Locally I've seen no soybeans this year. Have seen more peanuts than in a normal year. Saw more watermelons, too, but the latter is mostly for domestic consumption. OTOH, not as much corn as in previous years. Not as much cotton, either. It all changes based of futures markets. It's still "You place your money and takes your chances," but it's not as fixed as some apparently think it is.

 

[Richard T]

China isn't the sole foreign market for soybeans.. It might come as a surprise to some, but the US uses soybeans domestically, too.

For all the handwringing, it also presumes farmers don't change what they grow. Note that US planting time came after Inauguration Day, and tariffs were already expected. Locally I've seen no soybeans this year. Have seen more peanuts than in a normal year. Saw more watermelons, too, but the latter is mostly for domestic consumption. OTOH, not as much corn as in previous years. Not as much cotton, either. It all changes based of futures markets. It's still "You place your money and takes your chances," but it's not as fixed as some apparently think it is.

I would agree and don't know all crops but the inflation adjusted price of wheat is at a low that goes further back to before 1980 when adjusted for inflation. https://www.gurufocus.com/economic_indicators/4555/inflation-adjusted-price-of-wheat
Fortunately yields have increased per acre, but few farmers are making money with the tariffs in place. Changing crops may take additional equipment, knowledge and the right soil and water conditions to switch crops. You are right it can and should be done, but it is kind of sad that many farmers bear so much of the Trump burden at least for now. What I don't get is if China is buying Brazilian soybeans, where were their beans going before the tariffs and why can't the USA find those markets? Perhaps Brazil responded by planting more acres? If so that will be a more lasting problem.

 

[durangodawood]

China isn't the sole foreign market for soybeans..

Its a huge market that we've now lost, probably long term as theyve gone and found providers elsewhere.

It might come as a surprise to some, but the US uses soybeans domestically, too.

Maybe Cracker Barrel will do a Chicken Fried Soy Steak to make up for lost exports? If not, Americans will need to buck up and eat an absolute load more of soy at home.

For all the handwringing, it also presumes farmers don't change what they grow. Note that US planting time came after Inauguration Day, and tariffs were already expected. Locally I've seen no soybeans this year. Have seen more peanuts than in a normal year. Saw more watermelons, too, but the latter is mostly for domestic consumption. OTOH, not as much corn as in previous years. Not as much cotton, either. It all changes based of futures markets. It's still "You place your money and takes your chances," but it's not as fixed as some apparently think it is.

I dont see foreign buyers favoring the US for any commodity in this environment.

 

[Desk trauma]

are right it can and should be done, but it is kind of sad that many farmers bear so much of the Trump burden at least for now.

What’s sad about a group of people getting what they overwhelmingly asked for?

 

[NxNW]

What’s sad about a group of people getting what they overwhelmingly asked for?

"I never thought the leopard would eat MY face", she sobbed.

 

[Say it aint so]

There are widespread misconceptions and misunderstandings about free trade and globalization across the political spectrum. Historically, prominent conservative figures such as Ronald Reagan, W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and much of the Republican Party have supported global trade and free-market policies. In contrast, Democratic politicians have often opposed free markets and globalization, influenced by substantial support from U.S. labor unions that resist these economic models. Despite campaign promises, presidents from both major parties have ultimately endorsed and enacted legislation favoring free markets and globalization.

However, public sentiment toward globalization and free trade has remained largely negative among Americans, regardless of political ideology. This opposition stems from uneven impacts; while some individuals benefit, others face job losses or economic disadvantages. Consequently, it is perceived that wealthy individuals generally favor globalization and free-market policies, while average citizens are more likely to oppose them due to adverse effects.

The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions. This development represents a notable change, introducing a politician who actively challenges free-market orthodoxy and advocates for policies intended to support everyday Americans.

There is essentially no difference when Senator Sanders and his supporters refer to the "Top 1%" and when MAGA advocates speak of "elite globalists"; both groups are expressing similar concerns. The underlying message is that free trade and globalism are perceived as detrimental to America, and therefore, the nation must take steps to protect itself from the influence of the globalist top 1%.

President Trump is now in a position to address issues related to globalism and free trade. He is approaching these challenges with determination and the full support of American resources.

MAGA supporters are pleased. If liberals who oppose President Trump considered his stance, they might agree with him, since their preferred politicians like Senator Sanders and AOC also advocate withdrawing from the WTO, ending free trade, and rejecting globalism.

As a lifelong conservative and proponent of the free market, I—and many others—view this movement with shock and mourn the devastation we fear awaits us.

Currently, soybean exports to China are almost nonexistent; corn is next, followed by Wisconsin dairy products, Kentucky and Tennessee bourbon, Nebraska beef, and potentially Maine lobster, all of which may see reduced exports. Most of these products are made by hardworking Americans, not the top 1% of globalists.

What is happening with global trade may be for the better—we need to address this openly.

It may take several years for us to fully understand that while free trade may not benefit every American equally, it does provide advantages to most—from the wealthiest top 1% to cattle ranchers in Idaho and cheese producers in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

At the end hopefully we will have a better appreciation for free market economic policy.

""The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions.""

Protectionism of certain job sectors is the whole point of tariffs. Always has by every admin. They have been used like a scapulae knife, and not the hammer pulled from the tool box as a redress to every problem. I seriously doubt the National Farmers Union agree with Trump's position. Sanders talks of "targeted tariffs" which is not what Trump is doing. The Trump stance and the Sanders stance are not aligned at all.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

""The rise of President Trump marked a shift in conservative politics, with his stance against free trade and globalism aligning closely with positions held by Senator Bernie Sanders and American labor unions.""

Protectionism of certain job sectors is the whole point of tariffs. Always has by every admin. They have been used like a scapulae knife, and not the hammer pulled from the tool box as a redress to every problem. I seriously doubt the National Farmers Union agree with Trump's position. Sanders talks of "targeted tariffs" which is not what Trump is doing. The Trump stance and the Sanders stance are not aligned at all.

President Trump and Senator Sanders differ in style and strategy but both oppose free trade and globalization. While Sanders may support targeted tariffs on specific products, Trump takes a more confrontational approach; ultimately, both stand against free trade and the free market.

Regardless of their strategy , both are wrong. Protectionism does not have a role in the economy of the 21st century.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

What’s sad about a group of people getting what they overwhelmingly asked for?

Exactly! They had four years to know what to expect.

 

[Say it aint so]

President Trump and Senator Sanders differ in style and strategy but both oppose free trade and globalization. While Sanders may support targeted tariffs on specific products, Trump takes a more confrontational approach; ultimately, both stand against free trade and the free market.

Regardless of their strategy , both are wrong. Protectionism does not have a role in the economy of the 21st century.

Free trade is a misnomer to me. There has never been absolute free trade. Trade agreements always came with tariff schedules when enacted between countries. I think protectionism has it's place. Biden placed a 100 percent tariff on Chinese EVs simply because it would have killed the US EV market. Canada had dairy agreement where once the US bought a given amount, a 100 percent tariff kicked in. They did it to protect their dairy market.