Farm Income during the Trade War

Farm income rose – but income from selling farm products fell. Were it not for direct farm support, income would’ve fallen.

Figure 1: Contributions to change in farm income from cash receipts from sales (blue bar), from direct government support (brown bar), and from all other components (green bar). Source: USDA, data of 12/2/2020.

Nearly the entire increase in farm income going from 2017 to 2020 is accounted for by the increase in government support.

Figure 2: Farm income from cash receipts from sales (blue bar), from direct government support (brown bar), and from all other components (green bar). Source: USDA, data of 12/2/2020.

Note that in 2020 the change in direct government support accounted for 2/3 of the change in net farm income.

How to wean the farm sector off of government support is a big question going forward.

75 thoughts on “Farm Income during the Trade War

  1. Moses Herzog

    You’re not saying that a bunch of midwestern caucasian Republican farmers were on government (read trumpian) welfare are you Menzie?? [ pulls pin and tosses out hand grenade from the bushes with a grin and waits for Menzie to take the bait ]

  2. Not Trampis

    you are Wrong Chinnie, Trump was winning. I don’t know how but he said he was winning and he never lied did he?

  3. pgl

    One thing that can wean farmers off of government dole would be higher soybean prices. Now that Trump’s economic team needs a new gig have them go down to Brazil and run their agriculture policy. The drop in Brazilian soybean production could be yuuuuge.

    1. JohnH

      Funny! pgl was livid about supposedly higher washing machine prices, but wants higher soybean prices, which would adversely affect a LOT more American consumers.

      If he were really true to his free trade dogma, he would advocate the end of ag subsidies and let farmers suffer the same fate as workers. Hypocrisy anyone?

      1. Menzie Chinn Post author

        JohnH: US exports soybeans; rising soybean prices is thus a terms of trade gain. Net national welfare therefore increases. Higher import prices induces a net national welfare loss, unless foreign country export prices decline (of which there is no evidence of happening).

        1. pgl

          No that can’t be true as JohnH has this theory that those tariffs on washing machines destroyed the profitability of retailers such as WalMart. Of course reports higher sales and profits margins and Yahoo Finance notes that its stock price has increased by 75% since mid 2018.

          But what do they know? After all reporting agencies all adhere to that free trade dogma. It must be nice to live in JohnH’s fact free world.

          1. JohnH

            pgl seems to be assuming that WalMart and other retailers selling washing machines just pass their costs along, i.e. they are not price takers. He may be right. In this case they would be part of an oligopoly, something that needs to be made explicit when analyzing and discussing the economic effects of trade policy.

          2. pgl

            January 22, 2021 at 12:59 pm
            pgl seems to be assuming that WalMart and other retailers selling washing machines just pass their costs along, i.e. they are not price takers. He may be right. In this case they would be part of an oligopoly,”

            My God – you do not grasp even basic economics. The issue here is the incidence of a tax. In a perfectly competitive market (firms are price takers) the imposition of an excise tax (which customs duties basically are) do pass the tax along. Now a monopolist might absorb a part of this cost lowering their profits. But your wording here is so garbled it tells me that you are completely lost. Of course I have come to realize you get lost figuring out what 2 plus 2 is. Please stop embarrassing your mom and learn just a little economics. Damn!

          3. JohnH

            Menzie: the oligopolistic nature of the domestic producers in the Flaaen article is certainly noteworthy and should be a gigantic red flag for public policy folks.

            As for the thought that the cost of washing machines was borne by consumers is pretty vague. Are we talking about consumers as understood in the CPI? Are we talking about purchasers who add significant value, AKA value added resellers? In the pieces I have seen in the NYT, he glosses over and conflates the two, when the final price impact to consumers may by vastly different depending on how much value is added in the United States. In other words, far less than the 25% final consumer price increase so frequently cited in the media.

        2. CoRev

          Menzie, just some info re: S Ag exports, particularly soybeans. USDA says this about Ag. exports:

          The top 3 recipients are Canada, Mexico and the EU with China in 4th.

          Here’s a list of the 2020 top 10 countries:
          United States Exports by Country Last Previous
          Canada ————–22576.91 23580.42 USD Million Nov/20
          European Union 19418.46 20700.09 USD Million Nov/20
          Mexico ————-19301.95 20508.22 USD Million Nov/20
          China ————-14179.31 14723.00 USD Million Nov/20
          United Kingdom 5366.73 5445.53 USD Million Nov/20
          Japan ————-5035.80 5401.05 USD Million Nov/20
          Germany ——-4871.51 5304.55 USD Million Nov/20
          Netherlands ——-3973.66 4182.59 USD Million Nov/20
          South Korea 3876.90 4078.64 USD Million Nov/20
          Brazil ————-3174.75 .75 3071.74 USD Million Nov/20

          The surprise on this list is Brazil’s import numbers for US soybeans. Some have reported that it was due to selling out the bulk of its crop to China and leaving too little for domestic production. Dunno. Just commenting on a subject with which I have interest.

          1. pgl

            CoRev provides us one month’s of data to suggest we do not export that many soybeans to China? This is from the troll who constantly complains that people do not take series in historical perspective. Hey CoRev – everyone here knows that Census provides useful data such as this:


            Gee China imported $14.2 billion of soybeans from the US in 2016 but just over $3 billion in 2016. How dare you underestimate the sheer power of Trump’s trade war in screwing Iowa farmers.

            BTW if Brazil is buying a few US soybeans that pales in comparison as to how they took away our share of soybean exports to China. All thanks to your hero Donald John Trump! MAGA!

          2. CoRev

            PGL, you fumbled your point: “Gee China imported $14.2 billion of soybeans from the US in 2016 but just over $3 billion in 2016. How dare you underestimate the sheer power of Trump’s trade war in screwing Iowa farmers. ” Not only did you confuse years, you also added a chart with no comparison to what I said.

            How does your comment even relate to what I added?

          3. Moses Herzog

            @ CoRev donald trump and his choice to head the USDA, Sonny Perdue did a terrific job. The private market working its magic:

            Now, CoRev, why all of your personal heroes like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Mark Levin, and Judge Jeanine never got around to discussing this great trumpian success story, we’ll never know. I’m sure all the school children who were starving to death over the summer time appreciate donald trump’s humanitarianism.

        3. JohnH

          I agree that higher soybean prices means that net national welfare increases. But the question becomes: how is that increase distributed? Certainly most of the immediate gains would go to Big Ag and their investors. Some would flow to politically important but economically marginal small farmers. Consumers of products for which soybeans, a major commodity, serve as a major input, would be adversely affected.

          However, you could make the case that if it were certain that a reduction in subsidies could be reallocated in such a way as to make consumers whole (tax cuts, government investment in education, etc), then you could argue that an increase in net national welfare is accompanied by no significant downside. Such a reallocation is wildly improbable in today’s Washington.

          Given this, I have serious doubts about how an increase in soybean prices could be in the interest of the vast majority of the nation, since gains are so concentrated among a privileged few and adverse effects so broadly distributed among everyone else, particularly affecting the less affluent for whom food is a relatively major expense.

          You will note that the discussion of tariffs on washing machines had two tracks. The most prominently discussed in the mainstream media had to do with the dire impact on consumers. The other track, discussed mainly among economists, had to do with net national welfare. An important third track, the potential adverse impact on corporate profits and investor earnings, was largely ignored.

          Don’t you think that macroeconomic, being about political decisions concerning the economy, should be broader than just net national welfare? Or that we should at least be consistent in how we evaluate these matters?

          1. pgl

            “I agree that higher soybean prices means that net national welfare increases. But the question becomes: how is that increase distributed?”

            If you actually tried (which of course you never do) you could find an entire economic literature on how farm aid is distributed. And yea higher soybean prices from say an end to Trump’s trade war would mean some households pay more for groceries. Again if you knew anything about international economics (which you do not) there is something that the rest of us learned in graduate school called the Stopler-Samuelson theorem.

            I guess it is our fault that we economists have not messaged this by putting it all in your Dr. Seuss books.

          2. Barkley Rosser


            Oh heck. Since I have been accused of being a petty bully for giving poor “Ockham says…” Macroduck a hard time about spelling, I guess I had better be even-handed and note that is the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem, although i know you know that. But, hey, we all make typos, and sometimes we actually do not know how to spell things, such as when you joined with Moses Herzog to accurately note that I was chronically misspelling the name of Ronald McKinnon, :-).

          3. JohnH

            The idea that pgl can’t seem to fathom is that an increase in the net national welfare may not be synonymous with an increase in the general welfare or the common good. In fact, they maybe very different, particularly in an economy where a rapacious 1% siphons off the gains, and possibly more.

            While macroeconomics may well be stuck determining net national welfare, Public Policy, particularly in a democracy, needs to look at the common good and the distribution of gains. Above all, it should adopt the principle of “do no harm.”

            This should be obvious by now, what with an aggrieved minority having brought out the pitch forks (and machine guns.) Yet any analysis of the distribution of costs and benefits seems totally absent from a lot of public policy decisions involving economics.

          4. Menzie Chinn Post author

            JohnH: Pretty sure he understands the typical calculation weighs surplus of producers and consumers equally. They teach that in Econ 1. You could ascribe different weights — i.e. weight producers (which include workers) more highly than weighting consumers.

            Teaching in a public affairs school, I think people understand aggregates are misleading, and are not focused singlemindedly on that. Heck, I talk a lot about GDP, but I understand the distributional aspects. So, I think you’re attacking a straw man (well insofar as “real” policy analysts are concerned, i.e., excluding Heritage, etc.)

          5. pgl

            “that is the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem”

            Thanks to Barkley who caught my dumb spelling error. One that it so happens I made years ago in an Econospeak post. I do need to learn how to spell the man’s name as it is one of the key propositions in international economics.

          6. 2slugbaits

            JohnH So what’s your point about higher export prices of soybeans? Yes, we all know that whenever there’s a change in relative prices there are winners and losers within the aggregate. Are you arguing that government should do something to lower export prices…assuming that’s even something that government could actually do? What’s your policy prescription?

          7. JohnH

            “From 1995 to 2020, the top 10 percent of soybean subsidy recipients were paid 66 percent of soybean subsidies.” IOW Big Ag.

            These are the same corporations, along with their investors, who would reap the benefits of higher prices while consumers would pay more for food.

            How can this possibly be in the public interest? (Not that pgl cares about that! He only cares about consumers of washing machines!)

          8. JohnH

            Menzie: does the producer component of the calculation isolate the increase in corporate profitability as a result of a change in trade policy? If there is a net welfare gain, just where does it go?

            Again, we are talking about public policy here, and some level of debate or public relations often occurs in the mainstream media: if corporate America wants it, benefits to consumers are usually emphasized, while negative impacts on labor are ignored. If corporate America doesn’t want it, harm to consumers is often cited,

            However, the impact on corporate profitability barely merits mention. I mean, they were the ones to orchestrate these trade agreements, so it’s impossible to believe that they will not benefit greatly. While these gains may be calculated by academics, the results are not readily known to the general public (AEA total members and subscribers are only 23K.)

            As for media coverage of the net welfare gain captured by corporations, it is virtually nil. I do not recall ever seeing any. Yet I think that this information is critical to the public’s ability to judge whether policy is in the broad public interest or just in the special interest of those who orchestrated the deal.

          9. 2slugbaits

            JohnH Again, we are talking about public policy here,

            Are you? I’ve heard a lot of comments about how unfair it all is, but I haven’t heard anything that I would describe as a public policy recommendation. One minute you’re complaining about high export prices and the next minute you’re complaining about subsidies to Big Ag. And to top it off you’ve whined about how the political system is rigged so we can’t count on politicians to fix things. What exactly is your point? Can you try and be a little less ADHD?

            So what’s got you all riled up? Is it the effects of high export prices on low income Americans? If so, what exactly do you think Biden should do about that? Is it subsidies to Big Ag? If so, then fine…and welcome to the club. But various direct and indirect subsidies to Big Ag also result in overproduction, and that overproduction is what makes food cheaper. It’s bad economics, but it’s also what allows what few small family farms we still have to stay afloat. If you want to abolish Big Ag subsidies, then you should expect higher food prices and greater concentration within the agriculture sector. Economies of scale are hard to ignore in agriculture.

        1. pgl

          January 22, 2021 at 1:24 pm
          The idea that pgl can’t seem to fathom is that an increase in the net national welfare may not be synonymous with an increase in the general welfare or the common good.”

          Since our host has already noted that all economists understand the difference, let me ask you how many hours of Googling did it take for you to come up with these words. Like you have a clue what they mean.

          I would say grow up dude but I have suggested that to you before and you never do.

          1. Barkley Rosser


            Based on when it seems that when JohnH was apparently a student at UW-Madison (a time when one did not add “Madison” to “UW”), like probably the early-mid 60s, I suspect that he is too old to “grow up.”

  4. ltr

    January 20, 2021



    Cases   ( 24,998,975)
    Deaths   ( 415,894)


    Cases   ( 10,611,719)
    Deaths   ( 152,906)


    Cases   ( 3,505,754)
    Deaths   ( 93,290)


    Cases   ( 2,965,117)
    Deaths   ( 71,652)


    Cases   ( 2,090,161)
    Deaths   ( 50,296)


    Cases   ( 1,668,396)
    Deaths   ( 142,832)


    Cases   ( 725,495)
    Deaths   ( 18,462)


    Cases   ( 88,557)
    Deaths   ( 4,635)

  5. ltr

    January 20, 2021

    Coronavirus   (Deaths per million)

    UK   ( 1,370)
    US   ( 1,252)
    Mexico   ( 1,101)
    France   ( 1,096)

    Germany   ( 599)
    Canada   ( 487)
    India   ( 110)
    China   ( 3)

    Notice the ratios of deaths to coronavirus cases are 8.6%, 2.6% and 2.4% for Mexico, the United Kingdom and France respectively.

  6. ltr

    January 21, 2021

    Chinese mainland reports 144 new COVID-19 cases

    The Chinese mainland on Wednesday recorded 144 new COVID-19 cases – 126 local transmissions and 18 from overseas, the National Health Commission said on Thursday.

    Of the locally transmitted cases, 68 were reported in Heilongjiang, 33 in Jilin, 20 in Hebei, one in Beijing, 1 in Shanxi, and 1 in Shandong, the Commission said in its daily report.

    A total of 113 new asymptomatic COVID-19 cases were recorded, while 844 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation. No deaths related to COVID-19 were registered on Wednesday, and 19 patients were discharged from hospitals.

    The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases on the Chinese mainland has reached 88,701, and the death toll stands at 4,635.

    Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases

    Chinese mainland new imported cases

    Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases

    1. Moses Herzog

      “non-cash items”?? rental income possibly. I’m not very familiar with how farmers do their balance sheets, other than from an exterior view it looks like they get screwed on futures contracts,

    2. Dr. Dysmalist

      An important component of “rest of income” is income from off-farm labor. Even 30 years ago it was somewhat common for at least one member of the farm household to work in manufacturing or retail trade. More often than I expected, both the farm operator and his/her spouse had an off-farm job. Of course, that means that the size, structure, and vitality of the local labor market is a crucial determinant of total income for farm households.

    1. Moses Herzog

      @ pgl
      Is this a personal challenge?? I’ll see if I can find it here in mid-comment. You already know “mediamatters” is a good place for that stuff yeah??? BTW, I used to be a HUGE Glenn Greenwald fan. But can someone explain to me how a homosexual Jew happily appears on a show hosted by a flaming white supremacist?? (no less than addressing him on a first name basis).
      This is kind of like When Tulsi Gabbard did her absentee vote. It’s like someone you view with great admiration and they just immediately let all the air out of the balloon. It’s such a let down.

      I’m gonna put a link up to what you’re looking for with 4 asterisks inserted that you will have to delete out of the link, as a friendly gesture to Menzie in hopes then he won’t feel he has to clear it for obscenity. Just delete the asterisks out of the copy/paste::

  7. ltr

    January 20, 2021

    Coronavirus (Deaths per million)

    Belgium ( 1,769)
    Italy ( 1,385)
    UK ( 1,370)
    US ( 1,252)

    Spain ( 1,168)
    Mexico ( 1,101)
    France ( 1,096)
    Sweden ( 1,065)

    Switzerland ( 1,027)
    Portugal ( 930)
    Luxembourg ( 890)
    Austria ( 801)

    Netherlands ( 772)
    Germany ( 599)
    Ireland ( 557)
    Greece ( 533)

    Canada ( 487)
    Denmark ( 323)
    Finland ( 111)
    India ( 110)

    Norway ( 100)
    Japan ( 37)
    Australia ( 35)
    Korea ( 25)

    New Zealand ( 5)
    China ( 3)

  8. Paul Mathis

    Trump’s 2020 State of the Union speech:
    “America will never be a socialist country,” the president said, prompting applause from congressional Republicans who stared toward the Democratic side of the House chamber.”
    I may be wrong, but I think many of those GOP congress persons represent farmers.

    1. pgl

      You see – subsidies for Big Ag is capitalism in action. It is only socialism when we help feed children who would otherwise go without food. The MAGA way!

  9. Erik Poole

    Well, there is nothing like a little bit of public support for the obesity-sitting-dementia epidemic….. Apparently, that is how one prepares workers for the information technology economy.

    So between the self-destructive trade war with China, all these subsidies and the closure of the US border to illegal immigrants (read migrant farm workers), US farmers must have had a lot to think about. How did they vote in this last election? Do we have any indication?

    1. pgl

      Faced with years of declining prices and shrunken foreign markets, farmers have been struggling throughout the Trump administration. Trump officials have tried to mend food producers’ finances by doling out billions in assistance in order to keep the industry afloat.
      The move: Trump’s USDA steered billions in subsidies to farmers suffering from tariffs imposed by foreign countries as a consequence of the president’s trade wars, an amount that far outpaced the massive auto bailout in 2008.
      The impact: The vast majority of the aid went to traditional row crop farmers, many of whom were part of Trump’s political base. Government payments are forecast to be at their highest level ever and account for nearly 40 percent net farm income this year.
      The upshot: Biden faces a difficult choice in deciding whether to continue the payments: The effects of Trump’s trade war will stick around well into 2021, and producers have come to rely on the assistance to stay in business.

  10. ltr

    Latin American countries have recorded 4 of the 13 highest and 6 of the 24 highest number of coronavirus cases among all countries.  Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, Peru and Chile.

    Mexico, with more than 1.6 million cases recorded, has the 4th highest number of cases among Latin American countries and the 13th highest number of cases among all countries.  Peru, with more than 1 million cases, has the 5th highest number of cases among Latin American countries and the 18th highest number among all countries.  Mexico was the 4th among all countries to have recorded more than 100,000 and 140,000 coronavirus deaths.

    January 20, 2021

    Coronavirus   (Deaths per million)

    US   ( 1,252) *

    Brazil   ( 998)
    Colombia   ( 973)
    Argentina   ( 1,017)
    Mexico   ( 1,101)
    Peru   ( 1,179)

    Chile   ( 916)
    Ecuador   ( 812)
    Bolivia   ( 827)
    Panama   ( 1,129)
    Costa Rica   ( 487)

    * Descending number of cases

  11. ltr

    January 20, 2021



    Cases   ( 481,040)
    Deaths   ( 13,829)

    Deaths per million   ( 2,006)


    January 20, 2021


    New York

    Cases   ( 1,314,916)
    Deaths   ( 41,620)

    Deaths per million   ( 2,139)

    [ I do not understand the public health failings reflected by the data, but am sure an understanding is necessary. ]

  12. ltr

    I know very little about farm subsidy programs, but I do know that farm subsidies during the New Deal were essential for the well-being of farmers and allowed the development of rural America and the production of a dramatic and lasting food surplus.  I also know that farm subsidies have been critically important for Chinese development and the lifting of poverty for tens of millions.  Then again, as Amartya Sen has pointed out the limiting of farm subsidies in India has been a prime development failure.

    I need to read on the matter, but what a Franklin Roosevelt and a John Kenneth Galbraith (agricultural economist) considered essential in the 1930s ought to be carefully studied before being dismissed.

      1. ltr

        Surely so; I am grateful for the recommendation. Also, I noticed a policy paper from 1984, which I will read:

        “Capture and Ideology in American Farm Policy”

        1. pgl

          I’d like a link to this. Menzie – not sure if Navarro covers only the post WWII period or he goes back to the Great Depression as well as what that 1896 Cross of Gold address was about. Under the gold standard – periods that saw a collapse of aggregate demand were also associated with falling farm prices. At least that was my read of our economic history. So during these exceptional periods, farm price supports could be part of an economic recovery package. But from say 1950 to say 2007 we had other macroeconomic tools so the political motivations of farm price supports were quite different.

      2. Moses Herzog

        *You better put an asterisk by that and tell ltr to avoid reading anything written by his clinically psychotic older brother Ron Vara.

      3. Moses Herzog

        I gotta say (‘cuz I’ve probably said it twice already) I wish I could magically go inside Menzie’s head, if and when he ever thinks to himself ” ‘A guy’ I basically co-wrote a book with roughly 35 years ago, later became a satire cartoon character on Stephen Colbert’s late night show.

        This seems like some kind of a low gut punch for Ron Vara, like an Econbrowser commenter making it into the post portion of this blog as the exhibitory moron on how not to do econometrics. Which by the way is one of my biggest fears in life. I wonder if I can turn this into some kind of Robert Klein comedic bit?? Probably not.

    1. pgl

      ‘Judge Barbara J. Rothstein ruled that Parler “proffered only faint and factually inaccurate speculation” of the alleged collusion between Amazon and Twitter. She also found that “there is no debate” that forcing Amazon to reinstate Parler now, before the social network could put in place an effective system of moderating content, “would result in the continued posting of the kind of abusive, violent content” that caused Amazon to kick Parler off in the first place. The court, she wrote, “explicitly rejects” forcing Amazon to host that kind of violent speech.’

      The rightwingers must hate it that our judges are not as stupid as they hope they are.

    1. pgl

      Menzie earlier provided this link to Chad Brown’s writing. Check out the other contributions. The one on the semiconductor sector was really good.

  13. Moses Herzog

    I’m putting this at the end of the current thread, because I don’t know what thread this would go into (thematically maybe there is none). But as I’ve said before Menzie does have some highly intelligent (above the bar) commenters here, 2slugbaits, “AS”, macroduck, noneconomist, Willie, joseph (although joseph has taken a couple swipes at me, I can’t really say his general comments aren’t pretty good quality), others I probably have momentarily forgotten and “the silent reader” who is of sharp mind but chooses not to comment (I imagine Brad Setsers and others if this type that don’t get much out of dropping comments). So I like to leave things here I think that Professor Hamilton’s and Menzie’s general reader might enjoy. In that vein, I would tell people Neil Katyal has a YT channel and he is planning to post roughly once every week on a Sunday. Go to Youtube, type in “Neal Katyal Courtside” and hit return button and then subscribe to the channel and maybe “ring the bell” so you can be made aware when Katyal posts, that would usually be Sunday night. I think it’s worthy.

    1. pgl

      “I imagine Brad Setsers and others if this type that don’t get much out of dropping comments”.

      I would hope Biden was smart enough to give Brad a position in his government. If so he is likely precluded from the blogging world for a while.

      1. Barkley Rosser

        Now now, pgl, you should not be wasting the eyeball time of the “general reader” here by making comments. After all, Chief Bully Moses has not included you on his list of those commenting here who are “highly intelligent commenters here.” And we know that his list has nothing to do with whether or not people have been so awful as to question things that he says here because, look, why he included Joseph on the list, even though Joseph shamelessly “has taken a couple swipes at me.” So clearly this is a completely objective and unbiases list that is not influenced at all by whether or not people question what he says here, which is, of course, the most valuable and definitive of anything put here by anybody, the most valuable to read for any “general reader.” Tsk tsk, shame on you.

      2. Barkley Rosser


        BTW, of course we know I did not deserve to be on this list of the “highly intelligent” here. After all, Moses has on several occasions used that now forbidden word that indicates a substantial loss of mental acuity due to age that he also used for that ice cream eater who for some mysterious reason leads the House of Representatives, as well as that clearly sleepy person who somehow managed to find the doorknob on the front door of the White House when it was not opened because his predecessor had fired the Chief Usher there. So clearly, even thoush you have not had that word applied to you, pgl, you are implicitly in the company of some totally out of it losers.

  14. ltr

    January 21, 2021



    Cases   ( 25,196,086)
    Deaths   ( 420,285)


    Cases   ( 10,626,200)
    Deaths   ( 153,067)


    Cases   ( 3,543,646)
    Deaths   ( 94,580)


    Cases   ( 2,987,965)
    Deaths   ( 71,998)


    Cases   ( 2,108,895)
    Deaths   ( 51,151)


    Cases   ( 1,688,944)
    Deaths   ( 144,371)


    Cases   ( 731,450)
    Deaths   ( 18,622)


    Cases   ( 88,701)
    Deaths   ( 4,635)

  15. ltr

    January 21, 2021

    Coronavirus   (Deaths per million)

    UK   ( 1,389)
    US   ( 1,265)
    Mexico   ( 1,113)
    France   ( 1,102)

    Germany   ( 609)
    Canada   ( 490)
    India   ( 110)
    China   ( 3)

    Notice the ratios of deaths to coronavirus cases are 8.5%, 2.7% and 2.4% for Mexico, the United Kingdom and France respectively.

  16. ltr

    January 22, 2021

    Chinese mainland reports 103 new COVID-19 cases

    The Chinese mainland on Thursday recorded 103 new COVID-19 cases – 94 local transmissions and 9 from overseas, the National Health Commission said on Friday.

    Of the locally transmitted cases, 47 were reported in Heilongjiang, 19 in Jilin, 18 in Hebei, 6 in Shanghai, 3 in Beijing and 1 in Shanxi, the Commission said in its daily report.

    A total of 119 new asymptomatic COVID-19 cases were recorded, while 929 asymptomatic patients remain under medical observation. No deaths related to COVID-19 were registered on Thursday, and 27 patients were discharged from hospitals.

    The total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases on the Chinese mainland has reached 88,804, and the death toll stands at 4,635.

    Chinese mainland new locally transmitted cases

    Chinese mainland new imported cases

    Chinese mainland new asymptomatic cases

  17. pgl

    It was good to see Anthony Fauci again and I’m glad he feels liberated to tell us the truth. Here is how The Guardian noted this:

    At Thursday’s briefing, Fauci was asked how it feels to no longer have Trump looming over him. “Obviously, I don’t want to be going back over history but it’s very clear that there were things that were said – be it regarding things like hydroxychloroquine [pushed as a treatment by Trump] and things like that – that really was uncomfortable because they were not based on scientific fact. “I can tell you, I take no pleasure at all in being in a situation of contradicting the president, so it was really something that you didn’t feel that you could actually say something and there wouldn’t be any repercussions about it. The idea that you can get up here and talk about what you know, what the evidence, what the science is and know that’s it, let the science speak, it is something of a liberating feeling.”

    Speaking of hydroxychloroquine – is CoRev still pushing this junk science. We know Bruce Hall certainly is.

  18. ltr

    January 21, 2021

    On 26 January, India’s Republic Day, thousands of farmers and agricultural workers will drive their tractors and walk into the heart of the capital, New Delhi, to bring their fight to the doors of the government. For two months, these farmers and agricultural workers have been part of a nation-wide revolt against a government policy that seeks to deliver all the gains of their labour to the large corporate houses, whose profits have ballooned during this pandemic. Despite the cold weather and the pandemic, the farmers and agricultural workers have created a socialistic culture in their encampments with community kitchens and laundries, distribution points providing free essentials, recreational activities and places for discussion. They are quite clear that they want three laws repealed and are demanding their right to a greater share of their harvest be established.

    The three laws that the Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushed would – the farmers say – eviscerate their bargaining power over the national and global commodity (food) chain. Without any state protection – including price supports and a public distribution system for food – the farmers and agricultural workers would be forced to pay prices set by the large corporate houses. The government’s laws ask farmers and agricultural workers to surrender to the power of the corporations, a maximalist position being imposed on them that makes negotiation impossible.

    The Indian Supreme Court entered the impasse with an order to create a committee to evaluate the situation, while the Chief Justice made a remark that the farmers – particularly women and the elderly – should vacate their protest sites. The farmers and agricultural workers rightly felt outraged by the disrespectful remarks of the Chief Justice (Satarupa Chakraborty, a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, has refuted those statements * ). Women are equally farmers and agricultural workers, and drivers of the farmer’s revolt – a fact demonstrated by the mass attendance on Mahila Kisan Diwas (Women Farmers’ Day) celebrated on 18 January at all the encampment sites. ‘When women farmers will speak’, their banner declared, ‘the borders of Delhi will shake’. ‘Women are going to be the worst sufferers of the new farm laws. Though very much involved in agriculture, they do not have decision-making powers. The changes in the Essential Commodities Act [for example] will create a lack of food and women will face the brunt of it’, says Mariam Dhawale, general secretary of the All-India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA).

    Furthermore, the committee created by the courts is made up of well-known people who have taken a public position in support of the government’s laws. None of the leaders of the farmers and the agricultural workers organisations are on this committee, which means – once more – that laws and orders will be made for them rather than by them or with their consultation….


    — Vijay Prashad

    1. baffling

      if they want texit, they better work quickly. texas is turning bluer every day. and covid has been rather harsh on the red rural areas in the west, reducing the older red vote in future elections.

    2. Dr. Dysmalist

      Texas already has its own electrical grid, I believe, though I wonder if Texans realize that, as alternative energy sources become less expensive and gain market share in the other 47 contiguous states, their primary extractive industry and potential primary export good, petroleum, will face declining prices. The same is true of Wyoming coal, too. I think this would qualify as seceding themselves into a terms of trade problem.

      1. Baffling

        Texas does have its own electric grid. This helped to grow the texas become the largest wind and solar producer in the nation. Texas will soon export this energy to other grids, either through transmission wires or hydrogen. Either way, texas is positioned to remain a major energy hub for years to come. Most republicans in texas underestimate how green texas energy has become. Texas will be a blue state in a decade, led most notably by houston. Roughnecks bashing green energy will simply pass ip good paying energy jobs. And unemployment is not a comfortable position in texas, due to conservative policies over the past couple decades.

  19. pgl

    January 22, 2021 at 5:22 pm
    PGL, you fumbled your point: “Gee China imported $14.2 billion of soybeans from the US in 2016 but just over $3 billion in 2016. How dare you underestimate the sheer power of Trump’s trade war in screwing Iowa farmers. ”

    Yea it was 2018 when our soybean exports to China had plummeted to only $3 billion which was the direct result of Trump’s trade war. Now CoRev had tried to convince us that these sales never were that great by showing a point snapshot where China was only 4th on the list. And he asks how my observation was relevant to his original comment? Yes CoRev is that damn stupid.

Comments are closed.