Farm Groups Bristle as Trump Kills TPP Negotiations

 The news agitated several farm groups, who responded with a series of statements. Among them, the American Soybean Association expresses “significant concern” following the announcement.
A Handbook for Ranch ManagersThere is nothing more whiney than a bunch of whiney farmers. — jtl, 419
By some estimates, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would have provided an annual $4.4 billion boost to U.S. agriculture. President Donald Trump says he can do better, signing an executive order Monday morning to leave trade deal negotiations.The news agitated several farm groups, who responded with a series of statements. Among them, the American Soybean Association expresses “significant concern” following the announcement.

 Planned Grazing: A Study Guide and Reference Manual“Trade is something soybean farmers take very seriously. We export more than half the soy we grow here in the United States, and still more in the form of meat and other products that are produced with our meal and oil,” says ASA President Ron Moore, who farms in Roseville, Ill. “The TPP held great promise for us, and has been a key priority for several years now. We’re very disappointed to see the withdrawal today.”

 Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View  Meantime, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association (NCBA) says American cattle producers are losing around $400,000 in sales every day without TPP enacted.

“TPP and NAFTA have long been convenient political punching bags, but the reality is that foreign trade has been one of the greatest success stories in the long history of the U.S. beef industry,” according to NCBA president Tracy Brunner. “We’re especially concerned that the Administration is taking these actions without any meaningful alternatives in place that would compensate for the tremendous loss that cattle producers will face without TPP or NAFTA.”

Combat Shooter's Handbook Several members of the U.S. House and Senate also made their concerns known.

“I am disappointed in today’s executive action to withdraw the United States from TPP,” says U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA). “With one in five jobs in Iowa dependent on trade, access to new markets is critical to our state’s economy.”

 Reconnaissance Marine MCI 03.32f: Marine Corps Institute Agriculture rarely speaks with one voice, however, and several groups are also on record being against the TPP, including the National Farmers Union, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers and the Red River Sugarbeet Growers Association. The TPP was “deeply flawed” in several ways, argues NFU President Roger Johnson.

“This trade agreement would have done very little, if anything, to lessen the impact of our vast trade deficit, provide actionable oversight of unfair market practices such as currency manipulation, or protect American jobs,” he says.

The Betrayed: On Warriors, Cowboys and Other MisfitsMeantime, RRSGA executive director Duane Maatz told U.S. Farm Report last October the TPP is a “double-edged sword for certain commodities.”

If successfully negotiated, TPP would have represented about 40% of the world’s economy. The other 11 member countries may still choose to complete negotiations, even without the U.S. on board. And it’s widely speculated that China may move in to fill that U.S. shaped hole by hammering out its own trade deal called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

The Essence of Liberty: Volume I: Liberty and History: The Rise and Fall of the Noble Experiment with Constitutionally Limited Government (Liberty and ... Limited Government) (Volume 1)  The Essence of Liberty: Volume II: The Economics of Liberty (Volume 2) The Essence of Liberty: Volume III: A Universal Philosophy of Political Economy (Liberty: A Universal Political Ethic) (Volume 3)  Farmers hoping for a fast replacement negotiated by Trump will have to be patient, according to Farm Journal Foundation senior policy adviser Stephanie Mercier.

“He says he’s going to get a better deal, but he hasn’t indicated what that means yet,” she says. “These things take time. It could take two or more years—if it happens at all.”

Want to learn more about how the TPP would have affected agriculture? Catch up by watching U.S. Farm Report host Tyne Morgan’s October 2016 report.

Check out our WebSite

Check out our e-Store

Environmental & Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View

edited by

Dr Jimmy T (Gunny) LaBaume

Is now available in both PAPERBACK and Kindle

BookCoverImageMurray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”

This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.

The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.

As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.

However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.

The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.

The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.

FOLLOW LAND & LIVESTOCK INTERNATIONAL ON FACEBOOK

Check out our WebSite

Check out our Online Rancher Supply Store

Advertisements

About Land & Livestock Interntional, Inc.

Land and Livestock International, Inc. is a leading agribusiness management firm providing a complete line of services to the range livestock industry. We believe that private property is the foundation of America. Private property and free markets go hand in hand—without property there is no freedom. We also believe that free markets, not government intervention, hold the key to natural resource conservation and environmental preservation. No government bureaucrat can (or will) understand and treat the land with as much respect as its owner. The bureaucrat simply does not have the same motives as does the owner of a capital interest in the property. Our specialty is the working livestock ranch simply because there are so many very good reasons for owning such a property. We provide educational, management and consulting services with a focus on ecologically and financially sustainable land management that will enhance natural processes (water and mineral cycles, energy flow and community dynamics) while enhancing profits and steadily building wealth.
This entry was posted in Government Interventionism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Farm Groups Bristle as Trump Kills TPP Negotiations

  1. Rich says:

    Agricultural commodity groups are all mercantilists. Their policies on trade – without exception – focus exclusively on how to get the government to help spur exports. If they mention imports, it’s only in regard to limiting them – or complaining that they’re in some way unfair.

    Like

    • Yep, and that probably goes all the way back to the War of Yankee Aggression when the subsidy was coming out of the pockets of the agricultural South (in the form of tariffs) and going into the pockets of Dishonest Abe’s cronies in the industrial north.

      But the real and permanent damage was done by FDR. He knew he had to “own” big labor, big business and big agriculture in order to implement his communist agenda (aka the New Deal). And here we are–signed, sealed and delivered.

      And that swamp may be too deep for even Trump to drain. lol

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s