so don't fail, Faget!
Please!
>cant impose them on 300 million people
obviously you don't count the little unborn ones as people.
And from there your views make complete sense.
I wonder which societies historically have broadened the meaning of "person"
which have constricted it?
if you pull your head out of your ass you will see you are on the wrong side of history.
one way to increase the amount of food available to eat would be to stop the stupid ethanol requirements
or that the storm will take place on a rainy day
I know, right.
How pretentious is it when anyone other than POTUS says "My Fellow Americans…"
are farmers that stupid? really? I don't think so.
Just for old times sake, can someone post the baker girl in teh Native American costume?
>farmers loose farms to banks and the rest loose money or break even
classic oversupply
Trump isn't touching your domestic (largest) market so stop your bitchin and take one for the team.
Farmers got very good at increasing supply over the last 100 years… "managing supply" not so good.
Must do both, like every other business, or go out of business.
sorry not sorry.
sorry boomer, I'll try to be "nice"
>if the production of food goes out of business you starve mother fucker.
for what percentage of human history has food been a business?
Why did our ancestors not starve?
BTW, if people are starving, business will turn around pretty quick for the farmer.
If you are starving you would be overvalueing gold by trading ounce of gold for ounce of wheat.
look, your probably very good at growing things, but I am glad you are not managing the overall (macro) economy.
sorry, I'm confused about what we are discussing.
Are we discussing all farm production coming to an immediate halt?
That's a hell of a stress test.
agreed, it is a crisis.
We're looking at a severe shortage of food in a few months.
Wouldn't decreasing current exports of food be a good thing? The tariffs are keeping the food here, where we are shortly going to need it, no?
I am learning soemthing here, so thanks.