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

181–190 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#181

Post by jfengel »

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…

The Republican party has a well polished message assigning blame to anyone else: gays, Muslims, illegal immigrants, trans people, feminists, government employees, etc etc etc. If only they can put those people in their places, prosperity will rain down on the proper Americans. As it did in the 1950s when those people didn't exist.

It works. And it will keep working.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#182

Post by throwaway2037 »

unglaublich wrote: post #166
cik wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

    > bleached chicken
I don't understand this meme that appears whenever US vs "Europe" food/crop standards are discussed.

I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx...

    > Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those that still do use a highly diluted solution at concentrations deemed safe.)

    > Nowadays, the industry mostly uses organic acids to reduce cross contamination, primarily peracetic, or peroxyacetic acid, which is essentially a mixture of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide.
What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load?

    > prevalence of GM crops
EU grows plenty of GM maize. More will come. Are Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops bad?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#183

Post by mlrtime »

joe_mamba wrote: post #164
01100011 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agreed, and thats why I continue to vote for representatives who won't raise those taxes.

The corruption will continue but at least I don't have to continue to feed it.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#184

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

    > 40 billion sent to Argentina
This is nonsense. The US has a 20B USD currency swap agreement with Argentina. Currency swaps aren't free money. It is basically a line of credit between central banks. When you use it, you pay interest on the borrowed money. You would be surprised how many of these exist with the Big Three (US/EU/JP) central banks with other, smaller central banks.

Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780

    > In October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced U.S. financial support for Argentina, including a $20 billion currency swap line financed through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).
However, there is very little info about how and when Argentina used it. No tin foil hat here: I'm unsure if this lazy reporting, or lack of transparency (intentionally or accidental). Here is the best that I found: https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/economy/argentina-used-multi...

    > Last Friday, Argentina fully repaid the US$2.5 billion it obtained from a US$20-billion swap line with the Trump administration

    > “Our nation has been fully repaid while making tens of millions in USD profit for the American taxpayer,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a Friday post on X.
Final point: It seems like everything I read about highly developed nations: All of them have massive gov't subsidies for agriculture which makes sense from a food security (+influence) perspective. Weirdly, it also seems like most people involved in farming are also fiscally conservative and probably vote right of center. Are there any countries where this isn't true? (I think of one -- NZ has little to no farming subsidies now.)

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#185

Post by mlrtime »

jiggawatts wrote: post #126
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…

I've been curious about this myself, and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect. One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their loc…

>and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect.

If all you know is by listening to people recently on TV then you don't know farmers very well.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#186

Post by throwaway2037 »

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).

    > rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits
This is incorrect. He divested. Google AI tells me:

    > Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#187

Post by jollyllama »

bawolff wrote: post #12
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…

Not everything is about economics. As the romans said - you need bread and circuses to stay in power. Keeping food cheap serves an important political function. It also serves an important security function to keep food domestic because if you are at war with where your food is grown, you are not going to win that war.

It keeps the farmers politically subservient and makes them dependent on the continuation of the establishment. Otherwise, they could become a power bloc unto themselves that could act against the establishment.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#188

Post by b3lvedere »

actionfromafar wrote: post #173
jmyeet wrote: post #61

Capitalism. The problem is capitalism. Any handouts for farmers go straight into the coffers of multinationals to pay for farm equipment, support for the locked down farm equipment, the patented seeds, the pesticides for the patented seeds and so on. The entire subsdization model is a profit opportunity for agricultural companies. And what do those companies wnat to do? Buy up the farms and run them themselves for mo…

The US also took food security seriously after WW2. Now it's all devolved into HFCS.

Or they exported the good food, because they could get a better price for it.

When i want real quality food for a good price in my own country, i have to go to another country to actually get it.

Again, i can't condemn them for trying to make more profit, but somewhere in the line it gets pretty weird and annoying.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#189

Post by mlrtime »

danans wrote: post #153
jiggawatts wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been curious about this myself, and I listened to some pro-Trump people who seem otherwise intelligent that tried to explain this effect. One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their loc…

> They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, They are quite aware of taxes because 13.5% of their income on average comes directly from federal subsidies paid by taxes on "city folk". https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da... > The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel. Most large farm owne…

>Most large farm owners are very well off

Most family farms (From my area) are land rich. The land is worth a lot, but they never sell it. The farming essentially pays for the land, and maybe a little to live off of. They are NOT raking it in.

Also almost all of them have notes on this land, not owned outright.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#190

Post by mlrtime »

watwut wrote: post #148
hulitu wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I presume they have reasons, They vote with the one party because they didn't had a lot of problems with it in power and, when they voted something else, it was worse. Between two evils, people prefer the "familiar" one. Works the same in Europe's "democracies".

Nah. This is not true. They voted, because they looked forward the harm to liberals and cities and lgbt and women who dont conform and non whites. They wanted other to be harmed and openly talked about it. They thought they will be harmed only a little, like the last time. Historically, republicans were not making policies good for them. By they promissed to be cruel and that was appealing.

And every single time there is discussion from liberals talking about rural voters, they have to mention that they know whats best for them, how they vote against their interests. I keep telling them this strategy doesn't work. The smugness is real and all it does is a) push people farther away and b) get everyone who thinks like you to give you internet karma, both worthless.
Post reply on HN