Summary
Following Donald Trump’s election victory, proposed tariffs of 10%-20% on general imports and 60% on Chinese goods are raising concerns across the fashion, beauty, and footwear industries.
Companies like Steve Madden, Under Armour, and e.l.f Beauty are assessing impacts, with some, such as Steve Madden, planning to reduce reliance on Chinese suppliers.
Tariff fears have already affected retail stocks, and executives acknowledge the industry is now more prepared for trade disruptions.
Many brands, including Ralph Lauren and Tapestry, have diversified sourcing in anticipation of restrictive trade policies.
So are you saying that subsidies aren’t money given to farmers? I mean it sounds like you’re admitting that it is but don’t want to?
Here is an article that covers at high level my position re structuring of US DOA policy specifically but also more broadly how US federal funds are being disbursed in practice. It does not cover part where these subsidies don’t result in lower prices, they are straight cash transfers into pockets of the people who owner these mega corps.
https://www.landclimate.org/the-cargill-playbook/
A basic litmus test to cross reference this thesis would be: are we getting more or less small hold farmers? Are mega corps getting bigger?
If the government is giving money to the farmers, why are we getting less farmers? Why do we have oligopolies in all key sectors of our economy.
Those issues arise from capitalism. That’s going to happen regardless whether or not you have subsidies. If you wanted subsidies to only help smaller farmers then the subsidies need to work that way.
I certainly bet if the US government stopped giving out those subsidies then the price of our food would go way up.