> they can sell it there for more money than it can be sold locally
So, just to be clear here: you want Utah farmers to foot the bill for the trade war? If they are forced to sell locally for less, they're the ones losing money. Utahns end up poorer in this scenario.
Obviously in a trade war, everyone ends up poorer. It's just simple math. It's absolutely dumbfounding the extent to which people have simply decided to ignore an honest truth simply because of the lies of one political cult.
I don't think it was OPs point. OP's point is that agricultural exporters in Utah profits on externalizations (aquifer depletion), which impoverishes everybody depending on that aquifer.
When you come to the realization that you can't drink money, this comes as good news.
So... you think Utahns are simply going to stop farming and end up destitute? I'm not following. No, they'll keep turning the spigot on because they have kids to feed, they'll just be poorer.
If you want better water regulation in the Utah desert, the solution is better water regulation in the Utah desert and not a huge tax on trade.
And I'm just saying that there are no lemons here. Empoverishing Utah farmers does nothing to fix their aquifer, period. They'll just be forced into less lucrative crops, and potentially into techniques that are more short-term and less protective of long term resources like water. Look at aquifer management elsewhere in the world. Are the poor countries doing a better job? Exactly.
So, just to be clear here: you want Utah farmers to foot the bill for the trade war? If they are forced to sell locally for less, they're the ones losing money. Utahns end up poorer in this scenario.
Obviously in a trade war, everyone ends up poorer. It's just simple math. It's absolutely dumbfounding the extent to which people have simply decided to ignore an honest truth simply because of the lies of one political cult.