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

211–220 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#211

Post by mlrtime »

garrickvanburen wrote: post #19
8note wrote: post #8

would this actually be enough such that farmers have to sell their land and new small family farmers cam get started? or only a new set of bankruptcies and the same farmers stay on? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xon9A5_4tQw&pp=ygUKZmFybSB0YWJ... was very illuminating

It’s likely the land would be far more valuable as something else. Small family farms, while romanticized, have all the problems of any small business competing with larger professionalized businesses; consistency in operations, consistency in output quality, access to resources - including people and machines. Additionally, for their own operational simplicity big buyers prefer interacting with as few suppliers as p…

It really depends on the farm, unlikely it will be used for anything else.

90% likely what would happen is an adjacent farmer would buy the land. You want all your land to be near each other, like defragementing a hard drive ;)

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#213

Post by d--b »

bluGill wrote: post #50

It is the ecconomy. Harvest have been above average around the world the past few years. In turn supply and demand puts prices low. one bad year and harvests will be down and prices way up. i've been working for John Deere for 15 years - I have seen this cycle several times already. people blame various politics when it happens, but the fundamentals are enough to explain nearly all of this. Anyone in farming knows th…

> overall operating expenses remain well above pre-2021 levels. Rising costs since 2020 have been driven primarily by sharp increases in interest expenses (+71%), fertilizer (+37%), fuel and oil (+32%), labor (+47%), chemicals (+25%) and maintenance (+27%), alongside notable gains in seed (+18%) and marketing costs (+18%)

These numbers are huge though. I think it is fair to say that this time it may be different.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#214

Post by mlrtime »

lateforwork wrote: post #78
insane_dreamer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. I mean, name one thing that Trump has done to help farmers more than he hurt them with the tariffs? (Subsidies they already had, regardless of the party in power.) What are they getting in return for their vote? The safety of knowing that trans athletes are banned and some Guatemalans in far away "liberal" cities have…

GOP has long pursued a strategy of getting rural whites to vote against their self interest. This is why they play up cultural issues such as trans people using women's bathrooms and such other topics that uneducated people can readily grasp.

Can urban liberals please tell us how to vote? You can come and help our fingers push the buttons.

Seriously, do you think this works? Do you think urban people living in poverty vote against their interests as well?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#215

Post by mlrtime »

seattle_spring wrote: post #82
insane_dreamer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. I mean, name one thing that Trump has done to help farmers more than he hurt them with the tariffs? (Subsidies they already had, regardless of the party in power.) What are they getting in return for their vote? The safety of knowing that trans athletes are banned and some Guatemalans in far away "liberal" cities have…

> It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. Something that's been made very clear over the last few election cycles is that a lot of voters will go against their own interests, as long as it hurts their perceived "enemy" more than themselves.

But only one side does this?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#216

Post by mlrtime »

lateforwork wrote: post #87
seattle_spring wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. Something that's been made very clear over the last few election cycles is that a lot of voters will go against their own interests, as long as it hurts their perceived "enemy" more than themselves.

Right. This article discusses how race plays a central role in the opposition to universal health care policies like Obamacare, particularly focusing on how some of the resistance in the South is due to white populations not wanting Black Americans to receive free care: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/univ...

I live in a a rural farm land area, the only time I hear racist remarks of any kind is online, usually towards white cis men.

Just an anecdote, but IMO progressive liberals are some of the most racist people I've encountered.

I have family members who didn't like Obama at all, not one of them would ever comment on color, it was his policies.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#217

Post by wojciii »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #182
unglaublich wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

> What do European chicken meat plants use to reduce bateria load?

I'm sure it's just salt and water.

I don't understand why consumers will pay for a chicken breast which has been injected with salt water. It comes out when you prepare it.

Also some people don't season food with salt (you can add salt at the table if you really need it). Meat with added salt taste very salty to me.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#218

Post by mlrtime »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #117
insane_dreamer wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. I mean, name one thing that Trump has done to help farmers more than he hurt them with the tariffs? (Subsidies they already had, regardless of the party in power.) What are they getting in return for their vote? The safety of knowing that trans athletes are banned and some Guatemalans in far away "liberal" cities have…

> It's just shocking to me how certain demographics are so eager to vote against their own interests. Nobody votes against their own interests. That is something that only stupid caricatures do, not actual people. If it seems that way to you, that should be a very strong signal to reevaluate your understanding of the situation. Most likely, that means either nobody is representing their interests or you have misunder…

You are wasting your time I think. The people here know who the right people to vote for are, anyone who thinks otherwise is voting against their interests.

There is only one comment above that says that both rural and urban people do the same thing, it is all boiling down to everyone should be voting one party.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#219

Post by mlrtime »

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…

Ok, another capitalism bad post, great.

What is your solution then? Explain how that happens/migrates to, in the US?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#220

Post by mlrtime »

pjc50 wrote: post #193
mlrtime wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So what's the alternative strategy that gets them over to ""woke""?

Well the first thing is removing identity politics, especially in replies or discussions.

Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.

Post reply on HN