09/30/2025
Are We Paying Competitors to Take Our Business? Could someone please explain this math?
Help me understand this economic puzzle:
I've been following the ripple effects of U.S.-China trade policy, and the numbers aren't adding up for me. Here's what I'm seeing:
The 245% tariff on Chinese imports has effectively shut down their soybean purchases from American farmers. Result? Our farmers are facing catastrophic losses—crops are rotting in fields, and markets are disappearing overnight.
Meanwhile, China pivoted to Argentina, purchasing $7 billion worth of soybeans from them instead.
Here's where I'm confused:
U.S. farmers: Receiving a $10 billion bailout (paid by us, the taxpayers)
Argentina: Collecting $7 billion from China's business, PLUS now being offered $20 billion in support from the U.S. Treasury.
So if I'm understanding correctly, we're paying $10 billion to bail out our own farmers who lost China's business, AND we're offering $20 billion to support the country that took that business?
I understand the stated goal is to stabilize Argentina's economy and prevent financial collapse. But from where I'm sitting, we've essentially
Lost the sale
Paid our farmers for the loss
Funded our competitor
Added $30 billion to our already $37+ trillion national debt
What am I missing here? Is there an economic strategy I'm not seeing?
Because right now, this feels like paying someone to take our customers and then giving them a bonus for doing it.
I'd genuinely love to hear other perspectives—especially from folks with economics or policy backgrounds. What's the logic I'm overlooking?
Comment