Financial Times, the epitome of quality financial reporting, interprets that Trump’s harsh words for supply management bode poorly for NZ. (I have not provided a link to that incorrect material that is locked behind a paywall.)
But, among advanced countries with the ability to satisfy a variety of regulatory standards, NZ is the most naturally efficient in dairy production, and stands to gain most from any moves consistent with Canada being heavily pressured to reject a long post-WW2 history of supply management in dairy. (I wouldn’t mind cheaper access to fine European cheeses, but allowing hormone-lade American dairy products into the Canadian market is something that I very much oppose).
So anyways, the point is that the explanation published by what many believe to be the top US media (not academic) source of financial news and interpretations, the Financial Times, identifies the most likely winner as among the likely losers of a change in trading conditions.
Don’t believe me? Find out where butter in China comes from, and answer the question of “Why?” Also, this is known. NZ is very competitive in dairy. Reduced supply management of competitor nations is good for NZ, not bad.
So … should I refrain from such tirades in the print publication I’m establishing? Refrain from mentioning that the number one USA media source on finance and economics issues cannot tell heads from tails on key categories of issues? Due to its misplaced credibility, this garbage logic is now being spread throughout the net.