Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

fb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#161

Post by rgblambda »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #155
jadenPete wrote: post #6

This question may be naive, but why is the agricultural industry so subsidized? I understand the moral argument, but why, economically, does subsidizing farms result in a more efficient allocation of resources? I've heard that it's because farming as a business is full of unpredictability, but if that were the case, wouldn't there be a significant market for private insurance, and wouldn't the cost of that insurance…

It's out of political fear. The irony is that it doesn't actually work all that well. Apparently, New Zealand abandoned all farm subsidies at some point and while the transition was abrupt and rough for farmers the farming sector recovered and is now performing much better. They abandoned it because they could no longer support it economically. They were producing lots of sheep that couldn't be sold. Now they produce…

>Here in the EU, farmers are giving away subsidized potatoes in Berlin currently.

I looked into this story because it doesn't sound correct. It seems the potatoes were indeed sold but due to an unusually high yield this year, the trader decided not to pick them up so the farmer gave them away rather than try to find another buyer. And it was just one farm in Saxony. So this is not an EU or even a Germany wide issue.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#162

Post by marcus_holmes »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #155
jadenPete wrote: post #6

This question may be naive, but why is the agricultural industry so subsidized? I understand the moral argument, but why, economically, does subsidizing farms result in a more efficient allocation of resources? I've heard that it's because farming as a business is full of unpredictability, but if that were the case, wouldn't there be a significant market for private insurance, and wouldn't the cost of that insurance…

It's out of political fear. The irony is that it doesn't actually work all that well. Apparently, New Zealand abandoned all farm subsidies at some point and while the transition was abrupt and rough for farmers the farming sector recovered and is now performing much better. They abandoned it because they could no longer support it economically. They were producing lots of sheep that couldn't be sold. Now they produce…

Also the whole system is very exploited and rigged. Powerful people are pulling huge amounts of money out of the agricultural sector, and every government subsidy is feeding that engine so those people can continue doing that.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#164

Post by joe_mamba »

01100011 wrote: post #140
bruce511 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for. It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture. USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport far…

Isn't most ag in the US just big business at this point? Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).

>farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance

When I see the amount of exploits the wealthy use to avoid taxes and maximize profits, I realize working a 9-5 job is for fools, considering how much taxes I'm paying on my salary.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#165

Post by throwaway422432 »

bruce511 wrote: post #124
csours wrote: post #107

Of all the guns that rural Americans love, the humble foot-gun is the most beloved. --- Someone else can argue the morality, ethics, economics, and politics of it all, but VERY simply, US Federal Government Agencies are machines for redistributing wealth from cities to rural areas. Rural America voted quite heavily to stop those subsidies. That's what efficiency means. --- Maturity means suspending judgement and list…

I agree. Personally I don't understand the love that agriculture shows to the Republican party, but hey you get what you vote for. It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture. USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport far…

I am not a US citizen, just an observer.

What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers?

I also disagree on the wealth redistribution. Government agencies are managers of risk. *

Is there a risk to the country's food security if farmers go bust on mass? Then the Government needs to mitigate that risk. Fairly simple.

* This was the explanation from the director general of non-US primary industries department as to the whole reason they exist. Managing biosecurity risks are particularly important, but also managing fishing stocks and helping farmers mitigate their risk.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#166

Post by unglaublich »

cik wrote: post #160
Animats wrote: post #157

Much of this is an antitrust problem. The inputs to farming, especially seeds, fertilizer and machinery, are controlled by monopolies and near-monopolies. There have been too many mergers. On the sell side, there's monopsony or near-monopsony, with very few big buyers.[1] Farmers are caught in the middle, with little pricing power on either side. There's not much question about this. There are antitrust cases, but wi…

No, much of this is a political issue. America wants food standards that are different from many trading partners; fair enough. But it makes it impossible to export many farm goods as a result. This is outside of the current political climate, and has been going on for ages. It's just coming it a head now.

People outside of the US look down on inferior products like HFCS, bleached chicken, hormones used in beef cattle, prevalence of GM crops, the preventive use of antibiotics in poultry, hen battery cages, and permissive-by-default use of additives.

If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#167

Post by rob74 »

modo_mario wrote: post #159
bruce511 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I buy all this, and I think your analysis is spot on. There's z log of cognitive dissonance going on here. >> One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. I think they like to think of themselves as highly independent. But in truth of course they are highly dependent, on city customers for their product, on foreign countries for exports, on federal govt for subsidies (both direct and in…

>and in some cases on immigrant labor. Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line. >Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had fede…

> Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people?

Not sure if they (no matter if big business or small farm) could find enough American citizens to do those jobs, even if they were better paid...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#168

Post by Obscurity4340 »

rob74 wrote: post #167
modo_mario wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and in some cases on immigrant labor. Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line. >Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had fede…

> Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? Not sure if they (no matter if big business or small farm) could find enough American citizens to do those jobs, even if they were better paid...

Shouldnt they at least have to try? Who else gets to throw up their hands before even trying to raise wages and offer an attractve (as much as is possible) employment offer to domestic labor before they get to skip all that to get to the good stuff where they get to pay even shittier wages, afford less rights or access to judicial review for their workers, and basically totally control them thru deportation threats should they get to uppity on Freedom Land's supply?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#169

Post by [deleted] »

tw04 wrote: post #128
tw04 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would appear that to remain competitive they had massive consolidation, and with that an increase in animal density leading to major issues with water pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CraFarms So I guess yay deregulation, now with more capitalist privatized profits with socialized costs!

Downvoting without engaging in a discussion kind of directly violates both the spirit and rules around here. I've posted pretty solid evidence that dregulation, did not, in fact improve the agricultural situation for New Zealand. It absolutely made a subset of corporations and mega-farmers extremely rich at the expense of the natural resources the rest of the country shares. Would LOVE to hear the arguments about how…

[deleted]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#170

Post by koshergweilo »

rgblambda wrote: post #161
jillesvangurp wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's out of political fear. The irony is that it doesn't actually work all that well. Apparently, New Zealand abandoned all farm subsidies at some point and while the transition was abrupt and rough for farmers the farming sector recovered and is now performing much better. They abandoned it because they could no longer support it economically. They were producing lots of sheep that couldn't be sold. Now they produce…

>Here in the EU, farmers are giving away subsidized potatoes in Berlin currently. I looked into this story because it doesn't sound correct. It seems the potatoes were indeed sold but due to an unusually high yield this year, the trader decided not to pick them up so the farmer gave them away rather than try to find another buyer. And it was just one farm in Saxony. So this is not an EU or even a Germany wide issue.

Thanks for the fact check!
Post reply on HN