Of course, isn’t that what America’s about….getting a public addicted to your “product” and enjoying the profits from it?

Come back when you’re ready and willing to have a reasonable discussion.

Otherwise, what you’re saying is, “You did what I wanted you to, but not for the right reasons, so I want you to stop doing it!”

If you support unilateral free trade, I repeat, quit whining about how American asparagus farmers are losing their jobs… or, if you still think Americans should grow their own crops and make a living at it, abandon unilateral free trade as a position.

So I’ll try to make this even simpler.

I don’t like tariffs on principle. But this “elimination” of a tariff wasn’t done to right a wrong, the imposition of the tariff in the first place. Indeed, it only applies to Peru and Colombia! It was done to foster a drug war policy of coca eradication in South America.

If they had eliminated the tariff on asparagus for every country, then I could hardly complain.

I’m not saying the farmers who have stopped growing asparagus or gone out of business should have been protected by tariffs, and if you somehow got that mistaken impression, I’m sorry.

I’m saying that the government should not grant special treatment to Peru and Colombia in order to facilitate its War on Drugs. Indeed, it should abandon the failed policy entirely.

For whatever reason, the government has taken a step in the direction you advocate- unilateral free trade- and, as a result, American agriculture has suffered. So far as Washington state asparagus growers are concerned, the drug war is irrelevant. All they know is that produce from Columbia and Peru is so cheap that they cannot compete… so they don’t. Instead they either find crops that Columbia and Peru don’t grow, or- more frequently, according to your quotations- they just quit business.

Failure of uncompetitive business is a natural consequence of free trade. If you don’t like the idea of American farmers going out of business, maybe you should rethink your unilateral trade policy… but you most certainly shouldn’t blame it on drug policy.

And if you stick to your guns on unilateral free trade, then quit whining about how it puts Americans out of work.

Having purchased the bulk of the hay necessary to feed my horses from the black market of “fallow” ground supposedly leased to the Dept. of Agriculture to prevent its overproduction, I can confidently say that neither you nor anyone else other than the landowner has the first damn clue as to the production of the land. Furthermore, while I admit that Mike’s article could have been more clear, neither you nor anyone else can determine from this bit of prose that Mike is advocating for an enaction of protectionist tariff rather than repeal of all tariffs. Given his past writing, however, the latter is the more plausible reading.

The canning plants Michael mentions don’t ONLY can asparagus- they can ALL vegetables.

That land IS out of production entirely, because it’s less UNprofitable to leave it fallow than to try to grow ANY crop in competition with Columbian goods.

My point is, Michael’s acting the hypocrite for complaining about this when this is a natural consequence of unilateral free trade- a viewpoint he advocates.