Back here on the home front, in my case with the cows, there is a lot to be thankful for in the last few years. New faces have come into the beef industry, and many of those are have infused some youth. Some are eager to raise their own cattle in hoop buildings. Some have set out to custom feed cattle for others, or develop someone else’s replacement heifers. Some hope to raise seedstock, and some simply bought a handful of bred females to begin a herd of their own with.

With this infusion beef production in 2018 will see an all-time high. Even allowing for continued growth in exports, however, experts predict beef supply will increase by over one billion pounds. Its as critical as it has ever been, that we keep our product moving.

We exported about 11% of our production in 2017. It was enough to account for $286 of a fed animal’s value. This year in the cow/calf sector estimates range from a few dollars a head profit to just under $100. Either way, profitability can be found in the $286 exports bring to the table.

My last post mainly dealt with agricultural trade to China, and the policies and issues surrounding it. When it comes to Chinese trade and agricultural commodities, the US beef community is towards the back of the line. Last year US beef exports to China amounted to just over 30 million dollars. By contrast, US beef exports to Japan were at 2 billion dollars.

There is more to the story, however.  China had been closed to US beef for 14 years until last year.  The subsequent excitement generated by China opening the door says a lot about the long term potential our industry sees in the renewed relationship.

Japan has a population of 120 million people. China has 1.4 billion. Japan is number two in beef imports. China is number one. Yes, the socio-economic conditions are vastly different for the two countries’ populations, and yes, China’s growth has certainly slowed, but make no mistake the pace it is on is staggering. From 2011 to 2013 China used as much concrete as America did in the entire 20^th century.

New faces here are going to need new faces around the globe to connect with. The idea we should further hinder and delay making inroads in a country where 1.4 billion are located, in a country who leads the world in beef imports, couldn’t be more short-sighted. There are those that argue hindrances and delays will hurt them more. There are those that argue they will hurt us more. There really isn’t an argument at all.  It will hurt us both.

Beyond the someday-potential of China, and the current discussion centered on tariffs, is the much more real and tangible trade that happens through agreements like NAFTA, and that which was hoped to have happened through the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. After indicating he may be interested in rejoining the TPP efforts a couple of week ago, last week the President tweeted he remained opposed. “Bilateral trade deals,” he wrote “are far more efficient, profitable, and better for OUR workers.”

While to date he has remained in NAFTA despite threats to pull out, the bigger trouble is that there hasn’t been much in the way of bilateral trade deals. In the wake of such, TPP and other trade talks have continued on without US involvement, diminishing our country’s involvement in the world’s discussion on international trade.

The administration has promised US farmers that they will be compensated for any trade losses, at least in regards to China.  The administration is investing considerable time and effort in figuring out how it is that they would do just that.  One focus in the news of late is using the same act that is responsible for government cheese.  I wonder what the current economic conditions are for the US dairy industry?

I suppose some farmers and producers are old-fashioned.  Given the choice, they prefer to earn their income through open markets and trade.

Finally, there are those that maintain that when it comes to beef we should raise the gates and eat only what we grow here. They will point to the fact that US beef consumption and US beef production are about equal, around 26 billion pounds. What is sometimes missed is that for it to work the US consumer is going to have to eat a lot of beef cuts they have never ate before in their lives.

Last time I visited a packing plant, for instance, we walked by stacks of boxes on which were the words “bull penises.”  Not only am I going to need for you to take a second helping, I’m also going to need you to pay as much as those that wanted them in the first place.

A 2006 survey of American economists found that 87.5% supported eliminating tariffs and barriers to trade. It’s not economists that are most influential on the issue currently, however. It is you and I. What say you?

“In time of war, we blockade enemies. In time of peace, we do to ourselves with tariffs, what enemies do to us in time of war.”  Henry George 1886

There is a lot up in the air right now for American farmers in regards to trade. For me it is concerning. The productivity and efficiency of American agriculture is unmatched in the rest of the world. We produce far beyond what the American consumer can consume.

From our relationship with main trading partners to our participation in trade deals with other countries, little appears to be certain. In writing about it, I find it such a large topic that I will break it up over a couple of blog posts. In the first, I’ll try and hit on a few of the larger issues I think about. In the second I will try to talk about how it may impact me, a beef producer.

Dominating the headlines lately is the trade dispute with China. Some are concerned the first may escalate into a trade war. Our administration has threatened tariffs against China for China’s unfair trade advantages. China has responded in kind by threatening retaliatory tariffs directed to U.S. agriculture.

On one side in agriculture is a group who maintains that most of what the President is doing represents mere posturing in order to negotiate a better trade deal with the Chinese. They give him the benefit of the doubt on using these protectionist trade policies to do so. I know many who have this view. In fact, some I respect.

Alongside them, living in the same place and generally sharing the same politics, is another side who continues to support what they have historically supported, free trade. They are steadfastly against the concept of tariffs. This happens to be the camp I am in.

Of those in the first group are some more queasy about it than others, and at the other end of the spectrum are some, in full-throated confidence, urging the POTUS, “to bring it on,” and telling the rest of us “to shut the hell up and support the president.” In fact, that latter was exactly with the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association’s CEO Matt Deppe heard on a recent appearance on the Simon Conway Show.

Some of them criticize those of us in the second group as simply being “anxious.”

I happen to be interested in how anxiety impacts the decisions we make in life. I devote a considerable amount of time to learning about it, and I could offer my own testament on the counter-productivity of letting our anxiety rule the day. The fact is, though, sometimes anxious is the proper state of mind.

As humans we certainly have the ability to get worked up to a point where anxiety overshadows our thinking, but we are also capable of not letting it properly inform our thinking at all. Researchers would call this the “normalcy bias.” Our minds can view any situation as normal, whether it is or not.

Let’s say we are in a high-rise apartment building. A moderate fire has broke out below us. Some of us, at the first whiff of smoke, are going to be consumed with the desire to “get out,” and they are going to begin to make their way down the stairs to try and find a way. Others will pacify themselves with the thought that “there is no need to worry” and opt to stay in place. They may be correct, but have they been in a high-rise fire before? What do they know of the fire below them?

With one in every three rows of Iowa soybeans going to China, with the export market putting $300 a head on cattle prices, I’d argue a little anxiety is the proper state of mind concerning China and our trade agreements.

As I think about them, I try to keep if focused on a few ideas and principles to help guide my thinking.   One of the first is: should the prior administration had found itself in the exact same situation the Trump administration is in, what would the agricultural conversation sound like? I keep arriving at one answer: much differently.

Second, I belong to two, policy-based agricultural groups. Between those two, and the assortment of others that are out there for varying commodities, there has been historically strong support for open markets, greater trade access, and lower tariffs. All of these policies were arrived at by these groups beginning with a basic question, “What’s best for our members and their families?” Then they ask politicians to support the policies that are in their members’ best interest.

As members we are not the groups themselves. We do the groups a service by telling our individual stories, by debating varying opinions, and by becoming informed on them. Where would we be if we asked what our politicians or President supported first, and then try to get our members to support it? I’d argue we are doing ourselves a disservice.

There are those that argue we should wait and see how things play out. If that is to mean our policy organizations should wait and see if what they oppose goes into effect before they offer opposition, when have we ever proceeded like that?

Third, in my involvement with policy-based agricultural groups, I’ve wrote countless letters to and had countless conversations with my legislators. From WOTUS to the estate tax and beyond, one well I consistently draw on is the detrimental effect of legislation that creates uncertainty for agricultural producers. Is it in our best interest to court uncertainty now in our trade policy, and light a fire in the high-rise in which we dwell?

Finally, it concerns me that in our current debate where are those holding up an example of when protectionist trade policies worked out?  Where are those arguing that this is the only option we have to address our concerns?

I’ve heard the statement countless times that “all you really need to do is read the Art of the Deal to understand what it is the President is doing.” I should read it, I guess, but I haven’t. What I’ve been able to gather, though, is that the book seems to make the case for the power of escalating anxiety in negotiations.

I don’t dispute there are times where that might be a tactic we employ, but when it comes to relationships we are in it for the long haul with, is that really in anyone’s best interest? Tonight, while you are at home, escalate anxiety with your spouse during whatever it is you find yourself in negotiations over. Let me know how that works out for you. Tell me if whatever short term gain it secured was worth it.

Doesn’t the very idea that we should bring escalating anxiety into trade negotiations go against how our trade policy has been geared for decades?  Hasn’t it been geared towards deescalating the anxiety of an unstable world in order to create a more stable one in its place? Hasn’t the United States reaped the advantages of being the dependable partner the world can count on in this regard?  What will happen if we change sides?

In World War I and World War II, we entered the global stage and only asked for enough ground to bury our dead in the aftermath.  In fact, after the second we worked to actively protect our adversaries in Germany and Japan. Perhaps the President would say, “We got screwed.” Perhaps we knew the value of peace.  Maybe that is why that generation was so great.

“We are reminding our trading partners that preserving individual freedom and restoring prosperity also requires free and fair trade in the marketplace. The United States took the lead after World War II in creating an international trading and financial system that limited governments’ ability to disrupt free trade across borders. We did this because history had taught us an important lesson: Free trade serves the cause of economic progress, and it serves the cause of world peace.

When governments get too involved in trade, economic costs increase and political disputes multiply. Peace is threatened. In the 1930’s, the world experienced an ugly specter—protectionism and trade wars and, eventually, real wars and unprecedented suffering and loss of life.

There are some who seem to believe that we should run up the American flag in defense of our markets. They would embrace protectionism again and insulate our markets from world competition. Well, the last time the United States tried that, there was enormous economic distress in the world. World trade fell by 60 percent, and young Americans soon followed the American flag into World War II.

I’m old enough and, hopefully, wise enough not to forget the lessons of those unhappy years. The world must never live through such a nightmare again. We’re in the same boat with our trading partners. If one partner shoots a hole in the boat, does it make sense for the other one to shoot another hole in the boat? Some say, yes, and call that getting tough. Well, I call it stupid. We shouldn’t be shooting holes; we should be working together to plug them up. We must strengthen the boat of free markets and fair trade so it can lead the world to economic recovery and greater political stability.”

I spent the morning in Des Moines.  On the way home, about lunch time, getting on the freeway, I spotted a man standing along the side of the road, holding a cardboard sign.  Up ahead, the light was green, and I about to coast right on by.

I gave him a once-over.  Did he look a guy driven by life circumstances to be standing along the side of the road holding a cardboard sign, or did he look like a guy that merely dressed the part and had a Lexus SUV around the corner?  Did he look like a veteran?  Did he look stable?  Did he look like a guy the police knew by his first name?

His face did not appear used to a life of comfort.  His eyes looked too serious for that.  A black mustache sat above lips as straight as it was.  His clothes were certainly nothing fancy nor nothing tattered.  His hands appeared to know what work was, and the boots he wore were for working in.

Almost passed him now, I looked at his sign.  “Trying to get home,” it simply read.  Perhaps, I am a sucker, but it has stayed with me all day.

Aren’t we all?  He looked like it, but do we?