Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The Brazil Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (2492)	9/30/2025 6:10:45 AM
From: Selectric II	Respond to of 2504

Maybe he should report the entire story, in historical context, instead of only part of it. Message 35254842 But it is the NYT, after all.

To: elmatador who wrote (2492)	10/2/2025 2:10:27 PM
From: carranza2	2 Recommendations Recommended By E_K_S Selectric II Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2504

Elmat, In my view, the Chinese refusal to buy soybeans from the US and instead focusing on Argentina and Brazil as suppliers is risky. First, China cannot feed its population from internal production alone. It has made a toxic mess of its farmland through pollution, over-farming, lack of water, etc., and any number of other short-term steps which are designed to rapidly increase production with long term consequences be damned. Second, it is not buying American soybeans for two reasons. First, it wants to pressure US farmers and the Midwest in general to vote Democratic as, obviously, the Democrats will blame Trump's trade policies for the disruption of the soybean market. Second, China wants to increase its influence in Latin America by buying significantly higher amounts from Brazil, Argentina, and possibly Uruguay. In my view, this consideration drove the Argentinian bail-out which was followed almost immediately by the scrapping of Argentina's export tax on soybeans. I am almost sure that the scrapping of the tax was not a 'stab in the back' as some have suggested. Argentina had to maximize its exports because it is in crisis. We have not heard any full-throated US complaints regarding this indicating that the scrapping of the tax/tariff was well-known to the US before the bail-out. Third, my research suggests that crop success is more variable in Brazil and Argentina than it is in the US. Thus, China may well find out in the future that crop failures or diminished production in Latin America will require it to seek US soybeans. But I think that in the future American farmers are not going to allow themselves to be beholden to one customer and one crop. Particularly if the customer is China. We are likely to see crop diversification. If China's soybean needs are not met in a year or two or three, then what? What are Chinese pigs (pork is a staple) going to be fed? Amino acids increase pork productivity. They are typically found in cottonseed oil, barley and corn. Cotton seed oil is grown primarily by China, India, USA, Brazil and Australia, in that global order. The US is the king of corn, followed by China and Brazil. The Chinese rely heavily on Australian barley. For China to use its arable land to grow a non-edible crop (cotton) so that its pork can get cotton oil seems rather stupid to me, but it might not be. As climate change occurs, crop production will be affected. It is extremely unwise for the Chinese to thumb their noses to any food suppliers. They cannot feed their own population. A supplier who is treated badly will diversify or take retaliatory steps, a really bad thing if a need arises. You would think that China's history of devastating famines would have had some impact on its present leadership. Doesn't look like it. Black swans and unexpected results do not seem to have been taken into consideration. Frankly, I don't think Xi Jinping is particularly bright.