Most active commenters
  • 0cf8612b2e1e(3)
  • krior(3)

←back to thread

462 points JumpCrisscross | 29 comments | | HN request time: 0.532s | source | bottom
1. more_corn ◴[] No.45078070[source]
Because the cost of goods continues to fluctuate wildly due to ongoing tariff wrangling that nobody asked for or needed.

Also farmers can’t sell anything because retaliation has destroyed international demand (I’d say decimated but it’s way worse than reduction by a tenth)

replies(4): >>45078094 #>>45078171 #>>45078219 #>>45084062 #
2. unnamed76ri ◴[] No.45078094[source]
I don’t know if you can factually back up your claims but I applaud your proper use of decimate. It is a rare thing. One might even say it happens less than 10% of the time.
replies(2): >>45078170 #>>45078182 #
3. furyofantares ◴[] No.45078170[source]
Decimation was way worse than reduction by a tenth. It was a punishment in the Roman army where the offending unit was divided into groups of 10 and each group had to draw straws. Whoever drew the short straw must be stoned or clubbed to death by the other 9.

If you threatened me with death if I didn't cut off my feet, I wouldn't consider that "reduction by 10%" even if mathematically it might be.

replies(2): >>45078410 #>>45078726 #
4. ◴[] No.45078171[source]
5. CorrectHorseBat ◴[] No.45078182[source]
It's not proper use, it's archaic use. Do you also claim bread is meat? A cat is a deer?
replies(2): >>45078276 #>>45078496 #
6. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45078219[source]
> farmers can’t sell anything because retaliation has destroyed international demand

Not true. At least not yet.

Q2 agricultural exports were roughly flat to Q1 [1].

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B181RC1Q027SBEA

replies(2): >>45078311 #>>45078313 #
7. dahart ◴[] No.45078276{3}[source]
I wouldn’t say archaic or historical definitions are improper, but you’re right - the primary meaning of decimate in English changed and now means to destroy the majority of. Maybe this is because decimate was always very damaging; threat of death is very serious, regardless of the numbers.

That said, I had sweet breads recently. And a cat being a deer sounds strange in English now, but deer is still the word for animal in other Germanic languages today, even if it faded in English, so it doesn’t sound completely archaic.

8. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.45078311[source]
Soybean farmers are predicting a world of hurt as China continues to acquire from South America instead.

  “Overall, export sales of this fall’s (U.S.) soybean crop are down 81% from the five-year average,” Brasher reported.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2025/08/20/soybean-farme...
replies(1): >>45078447 #
9. LPisGood ◴[] No.45078313[source]
Is that normal? It seems to me like we’d expect Q2 agricultural exports to usually be much higher than Q1.
replies(1): >>45078628 #
10. analog31 ◴[] No.45078410{3}[source]
Look on the bright side, it would have been much more harsh, had they worked in binary.
replies(3): >>45078518 #>>45078529 #>>45083382 #
11. declan_roberts ◴[] No.45078447{3}[source]
South America doesn't produce enough soy beans for them to replace America even if China bought every single ounce of soy.

When it comes to soy, America has enormous leverage and China already accepted they're negotiating from a position of weakness.

replies(4): >>45078555 #>>45078590 #>>45078654 #>>45082709 #
12. downrightmike ◴[] No.45078496{3}[source]
I split the hair where chickens were men
13. djoldman ◴[] No.45078518{4}[source]
Yep. 10 times worse.
14. underlipton ◴[] No.45078529{4}[source]
Would you say it's half as bad as the worst-case scenario?
15. brazukadev ◴[] No.45078555{4}[source]
The worst scenario for China is inflation. They are fighting deflation so that would actually help them solve the issue.
16. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.45078590{4}[source]
Leverage? Soybeans are the number one US food export (historically mostly to China). To date, China has purchased zero bushels this year. This is with US soy being cheaper than the competition. Maybe China cannot replace 100% of their demand today, but they are showing a united front that their import numbers will be kept as low as possible.

  …Basse says soybean importers aren’t just snubbing U.S. soybeans. They are specifically being told by the Chinese government to not buy U.S. beans.

  “So, if you’re a Chinese importer or a Chinese crusher, you’ve been told by the government not to buy U.S. soybeans until they tell you to. This is how China works. Today the Chinese have a stronghold on buying United States soybeans, even though our prices are nearly $1 a bushel cheaper than what they’re buying in Brazil. This is the pressure that I believe the Chinese government is trying to apply on the Trump administration during a trade negotiation,”…
https://www.agweb.com/news/crops/soybeans/8-soybeans-thats-r...
17. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.45078628{3}[source]
Seasonally adjusted and annualised.
18. imglorp ◴[] No.45078654{4}[source]
China may elect not to replace the whole shortfall. They may value the message it sends more.
replies(1): >>45079582 #
19. nickpeterson ◴[] No.45078726{3}[source]
Could be worse, you could be stabbed.
replies(1): >>45080571 #
20. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.45079582{5}[source]
80% of soy is destined for animal feed. While there is undoubtedly some reason why chicken and pigs have historically been fed soy meal ($/kg, nutritional profile, speed of animal growth, etc) -animal feed seems very fungible. If there is a soybean deficit, seems plausible to swap to some other abundant crop.
replies(1): >>45079982 #
21. jandrewrogers ◴[] No.45079982{6}[source]
Those crops would need to have been planted at scale months ago, with the full supply chain build-out leading up to that beforehand. The history of agricultural supply chains demonstrates that it is not nearly as agile as laypeople assume due to a long chain of sequential dependencies.

You either have to find a way to consume what is already in the pipeline or go without. Governments are very sensitive to the food security implications because there isn’t much slack politically to “go without”.

22. mwcremer ◴[] No.45080571{4}[source]
At least it gets you out in the fresh air.
23. Anarch157a ◴[] No.45082709{4}[source]
If China has a monopsony on soy beans, then they nogociate from a position if power, because the US either sells on their terms or see the beans rot.
24. Agraillo ◴[] No.45083382{4}[source]
Hmm.. Is this my brain inference or the parent comment author' too: "Bright side of life" -> "Always look at the bright side of life" from "Monty Python's Life of Brian" -> plot was taking place during Roman times (mentioned in the GP comment)
25. krior ◴[] No.45084062[source]
> nobody asked for

The american public asked for it loud and clear for it last november. We should respect that.

replies(1): >>45085001 #
26. blackbear_ ◴[] No.45085001[source]
Loud and clear? Trump didn't even get half of the votes (49.8%) and almost 36% of eligible voters didn't vote, meaning that not even one third of the American public voted for this.
replies(1): >>45085311 #
27. krior ◴[] No.45085311{3}[source]
Popular vote does not matter to americans, otherwise they would have changed the voting system.

36% of voters said: I support every outcome of the election, no matter what.

And we are now about half a year into his term and I see some complaining, but not one single person seriously opposing him and his politics. If the things he does were really that unpopular, he would not be able to do them. To me it seems like he has the full support of the american public.

replies(1): >>45085727 #
28. blackbear_ ◴[] No.45085727{4}[source]
> Popular vote does not matter to americans

The question is whether and how much these policies are supported, and the popular vote is obviously relevant in this regard.

> 36% of voters said: I support every outcome of the election, no matter what

That's not really true, for all you know those voters didn't support either outcome. You would expect a "loud and clear" victory not to leave one third of people unconvinced enough to avoid voting altogether.

> but not one single person seriously opposing him and his politics

Almost four hundred lawsuits have been filed against his administration, thousands of public protest events are happening, and the tariffs themselves were just ruled illegal. What does "serious" opposition look like to you? In any case, this is certainly not what "full support" looks like.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/projects-series/trials-of-the-t...

https://time.com/7312601/anti-trump-administration-protests-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgj7jxkq58o

> If the things he does were really that unpopular, he would not be able to do them.

What is the logic behind this?

replies(1): >>45086544 #
29. krior ◴[] No.45086544{5}[source]
> The question is whether and how much these policies are supported, and the popular vote is obviously relevant in this regard.

They are supported by the election. The american puplic accepted the result. Popular vote is not relevant for Trump.

> That's not really true, for all you know those voters didn't support either outcome. You would expect a "loud and clear" victory not to leave one third of people unconvinced enough to avoid voting altogether.

Maybe they had different reasons, but unfortunately thats not how not casting a vote works in a democracy. If you do not vote, you support the winner, no matter your intentions.

> Almost four hundred lawsuits have been filed against his administration

Trump has every branch of the government in his hand, law does not matter to him. Besides, he is a convicted criminal already. A few more lost lawsuits don't matter.

> Thousands of public protest events are happening

And millions of americans are not attending. Feels more like a vocal minority to me than a real movement.

> the tariffs themselves were just ruled illegal

I have not followed closely, but someday it gets to the supreme court and they will say "the president can do whatever he want", like they have said in the past.

> What does "serious" opposition look like to you?

Something that prevents Trump from executing his plans. Something that prevents Trump from just doing whatever he wants.

> time.com: "...thousands of protesters attended demonstrations on Independence Day..."

Thousands? Thats a fraction of a fraction of the american population. I am sorry, but I fail to see how that supports your point.

I will have to admit I am a little jaded when it comes to the US, but you must forgive me: when the US threatens your country with war, a lot of nuance goes out of the window. If an american clusterbomb kills me and my family tomorrow, I won't care that it has been ruled illegal by some lower court (Trump won't either).