Trade War Economics: How Daily Policy Changes Affect American Farm Income

[Paul Yeager] Oh, we're going to get so deep in policy. But we're also going to talk about, the only certainty we have in trade is uncertainty. And we're going to find out what that means for the American farmers as well as businesses, and talk about global markets and how it's impacting you on the farm or you and your community, or when you go to the store to buy something. I'm Paul Yeager, this is the MToM podcast. This week we're back to school. We're not talking about anything casual. We are jumping into trade. We're going to talk about the policy of the Trump administration, the Biden - Harris administration will also, kind of look back a little bit with what has happened for farmers as they have tried to progress over years and years, of dealing with governments and what their ideals are. So we're going to go to somebody who is now in the nonprofit or the policy side of things, who's been an academic who's also worked in government. Gbenga Ajilore is the chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He's based in DC, spent time in Ohio, but he's from California. So of course we're going to talk about what's the differences and similarities between those three places and what it means to food production. If you have any feedback for me, send me an email at MarkettoMarket@iowaPBS.org. Leave a comment. Rate us, like us, share a city. And that's great. But now let's get into our discussion. Born in California, worked in Ohio and DC. Any similarities between those three for you, Gbenga?

[Gbenga Ajilore] I think the way I think about it is that people all want the same thing, no matter where they live, and they just want to be able to thrive and live and healthy communities. And that's what I've noticed in all three places.

[Yeager] Have you noticed let's talk, Ohio and California specifically. You've educated there. Food production is a big, big deal in those two spots. How do they view food production in those two locations?

[Ajilore] What is interesting in California, I think it's more separated between rural and urban, where if you live in urban areas where I grew up in, you don't think too much about where your food came from. You just know somewhere in the Central Valley and in Ohio, it's a lot more integrated and there's a lot more people who, you know, I live in Toledo, Ohio, another urban area, but people understood and people who came to the city. You know, I taught at the University of Toledo. So a lot of people came from rural areas of Ohio to be educated there. And so they bring that kind of farm agricultural sector into the city. So there's a lot more integrated there.

[Yeager] Well, then help me see how that fits in with your role at center on budget and policy priorities.

[Ajilore] So my job is, chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And my focus is broadly looking at the trajectory of the economy, what's happening with unemployment, what's happening with inflation, economic growth. And so what what this is has been, helpful for is now with tariffs and what's been happening with tariffs and seeing how that impacts each of those things.

[Yeager] Yeah I think you just hit the five topics we'll hit for the next six hours. So get comfortable everybody. But before that you've worked for USDA. And what capacity.

[Ajilore] So I was a senior advisor in the Biden-Harris administration working at the Rural Development Mission area. So while we did a little bit of agriculture, we're broadly all rural. So housing, infrastructure, business, you think about high speed internet, you think about clean energy. Did all those things, all of the above.

[Yeager] What has been the biggest takeaway from your time inside government to outside of it?

[Ajilore] So my first biggest takeaway was that I knew nothing about government. It was my first time in government, and I just saw the breadth of what the government can do and how the government impacts everyone's day to day life. And the second biggest takeaway was it's important for people to understand how the government can help, but not from a paternalistic where it's like, oh, we're here for you. One of the things that we tried to do is we're here to help as a neighbor or partner. And I think focusing government that way, I think was really important.

[Yeager] Do you get the sense? I mean, we know what the current administration is. Her view has been on the government, they want it smaller. And I'm sure you've got friends that were there behind, in USDA. What is different now with what your job was to what they're trying to do right now?

[Ajilore] I think it goes back to that neighbor and partner thing where this administration doesn't see the government in that role. The government wants to kind of step out of it and let communities kind of work and live on their own. But one of the things that we're finding that that just doesn't work out where everyone needs a helping hand and everyone is that partner or neighbor.

[Yeager] Let's, put all those jobs, all those locations together. What's the current state of the rural economy in America?

[Ajilore] The rural economy is struggling, and a lot of it is because government, I would say, hasn't done enough to support. And so I think one of the kind of best ways to see that is with, clean energy. One of the things that we did in Tobias Harris administration is pursue solar, wind, geothermal, all these projects to try to help rural communities, actually not just, you know, talk about climate change, but actually just save on energy costs. I remember there was this hog farm in Illinois where they got solar panel array and they were able to lower their monthly energy cost, $30,000, like they paid $25 just for the upkeep. And so there's a lot of stories throughout the country where small communities were able to benefit and also to help out and the environment. And so I think with the pause and the halting of solar and wind projects, which are a huge part of rural economies and way, they were saving money, there's going to be struggle there.

[Yeager] Even if government support doesn't, isn't there for the next three years. Do you think some of those projects, or at least ideas of having projects that will continue and if they will, how will they look?

[Ajilore] So I think people understand the importance of these projects. And while the federal government is stopping that, I think states and localities are trying to find ways trying to tap into the private sector or philanthropic sector to help push these, you know, across the finish line. And, you know, in the next three years are not able to get federal support areas are going to try to think about, well, what can we do? What are, creative ways for us to be able to finance these projects? Because it's going to help out the local community?

[Yeager] Well, you could argue that there doesn't need to be any help or if if the market is allowing it or if the markets there it will happen or are either solar or wind mature enough that that can happen.

[Ajilore] They are more mature than they were, say, 5 or 10 years ago. But when we talk about the market, a lot of times we say the market should support these things, but we only do it in certain sectors. So we talk about energy sector and the clean energy sector. It's like, well, if the market should support it, then you shouldn't have to tap government. But if you look at the oil and gas sector, they still have subsidies. They've had it for like 40 years. So like what's you know, good for the goose should be good for the gander. Right. And so we don't have kind of like that consistent argument there.

[Yeager] That's the argument that I've had made, for the ethanol industry, by the ethanol industry, is that they, they always tout what oil and gas is getting for subsidies. So why shouldn't they? Why was ethanol not targeted?

[Ajilore] I don't really have a good answer for that. I think one of the things is with, corn industry is that there are strong supports for, particularly in the Midwest area. And so I think there's just going to be a push for and I know one of the things that we did an administration, we were looking at alternative uses for corn. So there was the sustainable aviation fuel trying to find ways of being innovative with corn production. So I think, you know, corn production has a strong, support throughout the country. And so try to find a way to. So that's why we probably see the support and then not the targeting of ethanol.

[Yeager] I had a person with Iowa Corn at the Iowa State Fair a few weeks ago tell me that sustainable aviation fuel is. They have to have that. That is key for them. What, how close were you before you left, government? That we were there where that was going to take off? Yeah.

[Ajilore] So I think we made a lot of progress during our time, and I think there was some promising avenues, but it hadn't gone quite yet to the point where it was like, oh, we now have this and we can use this and then we can go scale. So it was like the two steps. So first, can you make it useful and can you actually, you know, fly cross-country with it. And if that's the case how do we make it scale. So then it's another alternative.

[Yeager] Well let's go to commodity prices themselves. You and I have probably both read the Purdue sentiment over the years, and it seems that that thing moves, up and down and so do other farmer based, ag based, rural based, surveys there always seem to be tied heavily to commodity prices. Is that the only barometer there is for the health of the rural economy?

[Ajilore] Well, I think one of the biggest parameters is just, you know, actual exports and imports. What's happening with those numbers and what's happening with those sectors. So sentiment is very important because we want to understand how farmers feel. If they're feeling really good, they're going to be, you know, not more productive, but, you know, they're going to be more supportive. And and if things are bad and they're actually going to pull back, and that actually does translate into behavior. But we want to see what's happening with exports, what's happening with export economies. And that's why we're so concerned about global trade. What's happening with other countries. When are things happening in other countries that has an impact on our farmers? And the same thing with imports, are we able to bring stuff in? Do we even want to bring stuff in and asking those questions? And then that also factors into farmers sentiment. And I think the one other thing when we talk about exports and imports, it's not just about final goods. Intermediate goods are very important too, because a lot of farmers import a lot of their inputs. And so as those fluctuate, you know, tariffs have an impact on that that's going to impact their sentiment.

[Yeager] Tell me more about intermediate goods. How do you define them?

[Ajilore] So we look at just goods that you used to produce. So farmers they you know use fertilizer a lot of chemicals. They have tractors, they build fencing, they build grain boxes. And so all the things that go into that, it's going to impact their bottom line. And so when those go up, it makes it tougher for them to be able to maintain profit. And when those prices go down, they're able to produce a lot more, bring a lot more back and reinvest in their farm.

[Yeager] Global trade. Good deal for American farmers.

[Ajilore] So that's a very tough question to answer. A lot of ups because it's good depend. And so there's global trade where we are have a huge export economy. And as global trade where we import a lot. And so it's going to depend on those depend on the farm depends on farm size. And so you know, as an economist and back when I was at the University of Toledo, you know, you teach econ 101 and you say, oh, well, trade is good and it benefits everybody. All, you know, it benefits everybody as a whole. And then we talk about individually who benefits, who loses and then what who loses. And I really hate that kind of frame. But it's like okay, well, you know, economists who usually don't speak English, talk about how do we compensate the losers, which is such a bad frame and which is kind of one of the difficulties in talking about trade. And so when we look at, try to figure out is global trade good? Is are we competitive and competitive for consumers, competitive for businesses and competitive for the economy. And that's why when we talk about trade and we talk about tariffs or we talk about, trade relationships and partnerships, then we get to the question of like, is this trade good? Is this trade fair? Are we doing the best for everyone in the economy? And and that's why when we answer the question, is global trade good. We have to look at these factors and then add it all up together.

[Yeager] But what's been the motivation for global I mean global trade is not I mean, yes, we can go back to when Spain sailed to America and they were in search of other things and they wanted to bring them back. Trade hasn't always been fair. It's I don't even know. Is it built on a fair principle?

[Ajilore] It can be built on a fair principle. And so when I think about trade as trade good, I think about coffee. We all drink coffee everywhere, but there's really only one place where we can grow coffee, and that's going to be in Hawaii. And the amount of coffee that we would have to grow in Hawaii to satisfy the demand of the whole country is just not possible. So then we want to engage and engage in trade to countries that do have good environmental climates for coffee. And so that way we are benefiting because we are able to meet our demand and we're supporting other countries and what they're producing. And so and they're that's based on fair trade where it's just something that we just can't do. And so but there's another country that can do it. So let's trade and let's and then let's you know benefit that. And so that's where global trade is good.

[Yeager] And but I think I'm now I'm going on the other side of that because I'm thinking about that's been a claim of the administration is why are we importing things that we can have in this country. They have been trying to blow up a lot of those, whether we're importing, corn or beef from Mexico or pork loins from some other place where it's like, we do that really good in the United States. Why we bring it in, explain why or how that even happens or why it happened.

[Ajilore] So I think a lot of that happens is we want to be able to support other countries. And so I have to think of, you know, really at the state this, really well, when we all do better, when we all do better. So countries that are struggling and so we think about, what we call, you know, so-called third world countries when they do better and they experience economic growth, we are all going to do better. And so some of it is that, you know, we can grow, we do pork, we do, meats, we do soybeans. We do all these things really well. And prior to I'd say the mid 70s, 80s, we just were producing for ourselves. But the Department of Agriculture took a step saying, you know what, we can feed the world. And so we had our farmers produce a lot more. And so while we could be sort of self-sustaining, we also produce a lot to be able to send out overseas. But at the same token, other countries can do that too. And so part of that is building a stronger global economy where you have, you know, strong, stable democracies all across the country. And part of that is by supporting trade, when those economies do well, we have more stability there overseas and more stability at home. And so that's one of the arguments for pursuing global trade. As long as it's fair.

[Yeager] Just like us as consumers. Benga. I think of countries like China, they are not necessary. Only it always appears that they are whatever's cheapest they're going to buy. Now, if there's a political ramification to it or if they're forced to on a phase one trade deal, they'll do it. Is it all about price, though? On the global stage?

[Ajilore] So a lot of it is about price. And so that's also part of reasons why engage in global trade is that we are always focused on price and providing the lowest cost for our consumers and then businesses, you know, want to be able to get the highest price and then be able to make a profit. A lot of times price can't be the only factor, because the question is, why is the cost so low? And so sometimes the cost can be too low and that's why we have to figure out, okay, is that where you start bringing in trade restrictions to be able to again goes back to the fairness. It goes back to being competitive. And sometimes it's like, you know, I can be competitive if I don't pay my workers. And it's like, and I'm going to be able to charge a cheap price that's too high of a cost. Right. And so you have go ahead.

[Yeager] And we're seeing that high cost and a lot of things, not, cost that you're referring to, but in the metaphorical sense.

[Ajilore] Right. And so sometimes you have, you know, countries that won what they call dumping, where they put in products at a under a price because they know they can get, you know, compete that away. And so that's why we have, you know, what they call the section 301 tariffs, where you're on unfair competition, where you do a study, say, okay, they are pricing their goods in our country at a price under cost. And so we're going to put tariffs on it so that our for our farmers who are competing fairly are going to have a better chance. And so that's where you have trade restrictions coming in.

[Yeager] Are the tariffs from the Trump administration working for the good of America right now?

[Ajilore] So to answer that question you have to say, well, what is the ultimate goal. And one of the issues because we we've seen tariffs forever. You know we've always had tariffs and we had tariffs at different levels. But the question is what is the goal. So sometimes it's about competition, other times about national security. And one of the struggles that I've had with this current administration's trade scheme is I don't know what the ultimate goal is. They've mentioned raising revenue. So we just had the Republicans make a bill where they, you know, cut taxes. And, you know, people are worried about loss of revenue. And they say, okay, well, tariffs can cover that revenue. And we've seen, you know, large, revenue from tariffs. But then they also talk about unfair competition. And so if you're putting trade restrictions to be more competitive, then if the countries respond to that and are more competitive, then that's a good goal and they meet that, but then you're not raising revenue because in the revenue goes because you take the tariffs off. And so I think it's hard to say whether it's good for America because it's there's no we don't know what the ultimate goal is. So we don't know when it's going to end. The other thing about this tariff scheme is that just cause so much uncertainty in the markets, where every day seems to be a new tariff being, put on or, pause for 90 days been put on. And it's just businesses and consumers are not able to adjust to that behavior. And it's also been going on for six months and there's just no end in sight. So there's no planning possible. You know, right now we're in the back to back to school season. And, you know, we're seeing higher prices. So we don't know, you know, how to adjust our behavior and how to find ways of saving money.

[Yeager] Well who is paying the tariff cost? This revenue that's being generated that you talk about?

[Ajilore] It comes from consumers and business through higher prices. And that's why I talk about before about it's not just about final goods but the intermediate goods. So businesses so you think about farmers, you know, their tariffs on steel, aluminum, fertilizer. And they've been in for about a couple of months. And then for those who are exporting there have been retaliatory tariffs on that. So now they're paying more for their input cost. We see higher prices in clothing and apparel, some at grocery stores, rising prices there. So consumers are paying it. So all that revenue were generated are coming from the consumers and businesses throughout this economy.

[Yeager] And so it sounds like that's being paid by middle and low income, not necessarily high income class.

[Ajilore] Actually been paid by everybody. The difference is what is it the share of your income. So it's a you know tariffs are a regressive tax. So lower and moderate income folks are paying a higher share of their income through these tariffs. But also higher income. You know, folks are paying these tariffs to, you know, for higher prices.

[Yeager] You mentioned the end goal. We're not sure what it is. What is strategy? And it takes a long time to get a strategy and a goal and to get things done, from being inside and studying things. How long should we expect that trade policy and deals should be negotiated? How long should it take?

[Ajilore] Usually these take, you know, upwards of months to years. And what usually happens is that you have, you know, lower level staff, people who are career staff at these, you know, Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture, who are experts in trade, who then would work with the other countries and kind of talk about, okay, let's say we're talking about dumping, and then you meet with the other countries, officials and say, okay, you guys are engaging unfair trade, and we want to stop that. And if you guys don't do that, then we're going to put these tariffs on a tariffs of say like, you know, 20% or something, which prior to this year would have been exorbitant amount, an exorbitant rate. And you, the officials are hashing these things out. And then when you actually come up with the kind of parameters or framework for a deal, then you, you know, elevate that up to higher level special senior officials. And then the senior officials would then hash out the details and the discussion and say, okay, this is what a trade deal would look like. It would be, you know, hundreds of pages and all this legalese. And and that's when you bring it to the president. And then you would brief the president, you know, write up a memo. It's okay. Here's what this is. And this is why this is going to be a good deal and why we think you should sign it. And the president with their, you know, cabinet would then talk about these things and say, okay, we're going to do this deal. And then there'll be an announcement, this is not happening. It's actually kind of the opposite, where the president tweets something and then the officials, then it goes all the way down to try to, you know, hash out what that means. And so a lot of times you have, you know, deals done by tweet. And the problem with that is that he would say something and then you'd have another officials say, well, actually I don't think we agreed to that. And so there's and then the other thing is we actually haven't seen any documentation of any of these deals that they talked about. They talked about the 90 deals in 90 days. And then there were some deals here and there with some countries. But we to this day, we still actually haven't seen any sort of documentation of an actual deal. So we don't know what is happening.

[Yeager] I want to get into the details in a moment. I want to go back to the process. If we could, how is it frustrating for those in the lower level to have something tweeted that changes weeks and months of work that's unfolded on an overnight statement?

[Ajilore] I mean, part of it is when you work as a career staff, you understand the administration, you get a feel for the administration. And so when I was working on the Biden Harris administration, our secretary like to do things fast. And so I was just like, you know, this is something I want to get done, and I want it done in like two days. And so after a while, you just get a feel for what the administration is. And so I think the career staff here are getting a feel for the administration, you know, to always check their, socials or their emails at night or in the morning, and then you just figure out a way to adapt to that. Sometimes you also there are channels that you, know where you want to be able to kind of have your voice heard. You know, again, you still especially political appointees, you work at the pleasure of the president, but you also have expertise. You also know what you're talking about, and the staff know what you're talking about. So what you do is you try to figure out ways to adapt and figure out ways of like, well, this is, I think, what the administration's goals are going to be. And so this is what I'm going to try to contribute to that. And so after time, officials are going to be able to figure out ways to adapt.

[Yeager] And, and how and when do we know, if something that is done, since we change presidents either every 4 or 8 years, how do we know that something's done in year two and three? If it gets undone in five, six and seven? Because there's a new administration from when that thing was done, how do we ever know when a Biden, Harris or Obama trade or Trump one trade policy deal has worked?

[Ajilore] That's a great question. And I think a lot of that has to do with is the next administration continuing that work or undoing that work? And so our great examples are tariffs on China, where the shift from Trump one to Biden actually kept some of those, tariffs. And so really kind of caution. So I don't know the, actual outcome, but a lot of it just depends on what was when it when that trade deal was done, what were the goals and the outcomes and what were metrics. And then as it goes through, are we meeting those metrics or did we shift them or do we change goals and things like that?

[Yeager] Well, I hear often, well, Biden didn't keep doing what Trump had done with China, but I you and I both know that there were a lot of things he kept in place. The phase one deal is, is something, that I keep hearing to. If Biden would have just held the feet to the fire and, and we would have maybe been able to have more soybeans purchased by China, is that a, is that a fair assessment of what happened?

[Ajilore] I think that's a tough question to answer. And so a lot of it, because it's we talk about like the counterfactual, it's like, oh, if you only did this, then things would've been great. And it's like, well, we don't know if that's the case. And part of it also is thinking about what's happening with soybeans is that and we're seeing it again now, is that one of the problems in that first administration is that China shifted towards Brazil and to other countries. And so even, you know, in negotiation, we said, well, you know, do some more soybeans. And he did it wasn't back to the level before. And so one of the concerns that is are we able to, you know, what is what are the goals. Again. And then are we able to push China towards hitting those goals.

[Yeager] Well, let's just find somebody else to talk to. Let's talk to India. Are they ever willing to pick up the phone?

[Ajilore] I mean, not this week. There's been a lot of, last week and a half. There's been a lot of issues with India, but that's but part. But that's the other problem with this trade scheme, is that we've put tariffs on over 70, 80 countries and of all varying, tariff rates, and not with the strongest logic. And so it's one of those things where I think about small businesses and small businesses who, you know, used to get their inputs from China and when you put the tariffs on China, because we came out the gate putting tariffs on China. And so people are like, okay, well I'll go to Vietnam, Malaysia or Cambodia. But then we put tariffs on them and then it's just like, you know, you say okay, well what country can we go to. It's like, well what country have we put a tariff on? And that's the kind of the question is I not I'm not sure what the alternative would be of a country that we're not tariff free.

[Yeager] Let let me finish up with India. Have they ever been I mean, they always appear to be that, elusive market that nobody's been able to crack. Is that a fair assessment of India?

[Ajilore] It is a fair assessment, and it always seems so, right. Because of the population size. So I was like, if you can get into the Indian market, that's I mean, that was why we went into China, you know, 20, 30 years ago. Like you're looking at, you know, billions of people, you know, and the same thing with India. And so but part of it is India understands that they have the leverage and they know how, fertile their kind of, area is. And so but they've also, you know, concerned about their own, agricultural sector. And so I think a lot of the, you know, you could say, like hardball that they're playing with the US and other countries is that, well, we want to protect our own agricultural sector. And so and we know how much you want that. So they, they have a little bit more leverage. And so they're able to kind of push back a lot more. And we've seen that especially in the last week.

[Yeager] I, I've promised that we're going to return to certainty. So the American farmer I know we talk about quick responses and things like that. You plant a crop of beans, you plan to plant it all the way back in November. When you start preparing the field, then you do it actually in April-May, hopefully before June. You can't really change as the price changes up or down, or because of a whim or a market is falling apart. So how can a farmer prepare for this current environment of trying to be in the right crop at the right time and hopefully get the right price?

[Ajilore] That's I mean, you've nailed the, the problem on the head that this is what's so difficult about uncertainty and why certainty matters so much. And so I would say, you know, for farmers, it's like, what are your alternative markets? One of the things that we did at USDA was try to find other ways for farmers to be able to be successful and gain revenue. And so I think one of them was we had these regional food centers and we had like local, school, like farm to school programs to be able to say, okay, here are these different pockets of revenue that you can have so that if the export economy is shifting or variable, you have other alternatives. Now, while some of that's been pulled, there's still other opportunities for revenue and generating revenue. And that's the kind of thing where because again, you have your crop that you're going to produce, and that's because you made these decisions all year long. So now where can you offload some of that. That's not just the export markets.

[Yeager] All right. Put your academic hat back on in an academic land we always talk about the the abilities. You have to think of things completely different. So what happens if we don't like what’s behind me, plant all the corn and all the beans in Middle America and in the grain belt. And we do more vegetables or more cotton or more something else.

[Yeager] Do we ever think that's going to happen?

[Ajilore] So for that to happen, the incentives have to change. We plant a lot of corn. We plant a lot of soybeans because the incentives drive farmers to do that. And to be able to make that major shift, because that's a major shift, is that the financial incentives and part of it is you have to think about whether to, you know, you think about whether it's going to affect that and climate is going to affect that. Like there's a reason why we do corn in the Midwest and cotton in the South. Right? So there has to be a lot of things that have to change for farmers to be able to make that kind of major shift. And a lot of that just policy policy is going to direct the financial incentives in terms of what's going to be done.

[Yeager] Therefore, it's going to change every 4 to 8 years, likely.

[Ajilore] That is true.

[Yeager] And it makes hard for the I mean, and these farmers have been around for, you know, in Iowa we celebrate, you know, heritage farms hundred and 50 years in the same family. There's been a lot of changes in policy over 150 years for some of these families. So I guess, as we get close to the end here, trade with fertilizer and herbicides and seed and outputs and markets, is there anything that an American farmer can, can look at to try to gauge where they can lead their farm and try to stay profitable?

[Ajilore] I would say I mean, getting back to your point about the 150 years is that they've seen all kinds of ups and downs, and I think one of the things that always, you know, when I do these interviews, I always talk about is people don't understand the story and the story of the, you know, in this case, the story of farmers and what their, you know, costs are, how they do things, what they need, what's been helped them make successful. Because then we see policy that goes against that. And so if people understood the story when they see these policies, they know like that doesn't make sense because I know the farmer story. I know they need fertilizer and chemicals. I know these things are part of their cost. I know they have to make decisions in November. You know, planting decisions, November, April, May. They actually have to put your seed in the ground so that come August, September, you know, they can start harvesting. Like, I understand that whole process. So when you're doing day to day tariffs, that makes it that doesn't make sense. And so but people understand that story. Then they can advocate on behalf of the farmer on these policies and try to create certainty.

[Yeager] And a certainty ahead here in the next two years to four years, that we can count on.

[Ajilore] Sadly, I'm not sure if there's any certainty tomorrow or Friday. You know, I can't tell you what's going to happen tomorrow. I can't tell you what's gonna even happen the rest of the day. But that's why we just have to talk, tell the story of the farmers and what they need and why they need this certainty to try to, you know, press our policymakers to, you know, have certainty.

[Yeager] So the only certainty is uncertainty. Do I have that right?

[Ajilore] That is correct.

[Yeager] You can use that in your next one. How about that banker?

[Ajilore] I will.

[Yeager] All right. I appreciate your time. Thank you for engaging in my crazy ideas. I always appreciate it.

[Ajilore] Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.

[Yeager] Thank you for watching. Get subscribed to that new Market to Market Insider newsletter. And I shouldn't say new because it's a year old already. That's kind of fun. Many of you have enjoyed that. Or at least you tell me you do. So keep reading. You'll find out what's coming up on the future installment of this podcast first, before anybody else. That's kind of cool. We'll see you next time. Bye.

Contact: paul.yeager@iowapbs.org