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

341–350 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#341

Post by sutterd »

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…

This does make the food much _cheaper_. You can buy food with high quality standards in the US but it is much more expensive. Most people in the US choose the cheaper option.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#342

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway422432 wrote: post #165
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 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.…

[deleted]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#343

Post by mekdoonggi »

blackcatsec wrote: post #312
mekdoonggi wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least (some) Democrats actually say they want Medicare for all. The farmer parallel would be like voting for a Republican hoping for Medicare for all. Though I'm a bit biased, because it seems like if you want anything other than for billionaires to get more money, you would vote Dem.

to be fair, this isn’t a perfect solution but it does get us much closer to that solution each time. There are still plenty of democrats whom don’t support solving these problems (for any number of reasons, I’m not going to conjecture here why) The best solution I’ve seen is to just keep pushing leftward—even if we only get a few increments here and there.

I agree, keep pushing leftward. It feels like we will never get there, but I predict that we will get a wave of change eventually, with folks like Mamdani. Trump dramatically shifted the Overton window rightward, which just means that it's possible to move leftward.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#344

Post by triceratops »

Spooky23 wrote: post #98
autoexec wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There'll always need to be other constraints on landlords because there's zero reason why they won't just all screw renters over in every area no matter how plentiful housing is.

You have to make it impossible for them to exist. Rentiers are the lowest form of business, and incentives need to make it difficult for them to prosper too much. These issues are why policy was oriented around individual home ownership for decades.

There's an argument that landlording gets entirely too favorable treatment from the tax code compared to any other type of business or investment. Seriously proposing eliminating property rentals is weapons-grade stupid.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#345

Post by jayd16 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #293
Throaway1982 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dems dont actually do much to reach those rural Americans though.

What specific actions would you like elected dems to do that you aren't currently seeing?

They won't come out and say but they just want a "tough guy" to follow.

Is anyone going to admit they voted for Trump because of his clear policies or clean execution, or sober leadership?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#346

Post by HWR_14 »

duxup wrote: post #267
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…

There was a NYT article about farmers going to a town hall meeting where they met their federal reps. One farmer mentioned how they've done these meetings for years and nothing changes, maybe they get a handout from the feds, but he says they effectively just go to support the monopolies that they as farmers sell and buy from. Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces…

If their representatives are voting against their interests, they should vote for someone else. If their representatives are trying but getting outvoted in Congress, why change them.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#347

Post by mexicocitinluez »

slavik81 wrote: post #334
mexicocitinluez wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it's actually because of the gun control crap that Dems push. Anything specific? Because from where I sit, the Dems aren't anywhere near as strict as they should be wrt to gun control. Or are you just believing the stuff you're hearing from conservative media? Are you really of the belief that "farmers" need assault rifles? What about bump stocks? How many school shooting have we had? What legislation came…

The proposed bans on open source 3D printers in Washington and New York would be examples of bad laws proposed by Democrats in the name of gun control. https://hackaday.com/2026/01/19/washington-state-bill-seeks-...

I would say 2 bills that won't pass from state assemblies in 2026 (after decades of school shootings) aren't exactly stellar examples of major legislation that has passed to restrict gun ownership.

There's been maybe 1 in the last decade. And really, providing an example of Democrats trying to reign in ghost guns sorta proves my point. You're average citizen can not only buy guns easily, they can make them too!!!!

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#348

Post by [deleted] »

thinkcontext wrote: post #109
itake wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't eat private insurance. The consequences of not being able to produce enough calories is severe. It is much better to overproduce and everyone gets fed than producing just enough and a climate event erases out 20% of our calorie production.

The US produces an unbelievably enormous calorie surplus way beyond what is needed for the health of the country and in fact its detrimental. The biggest is not even used as food, over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That's an amount of land that's truly beyond comprehension. Its a horrible program as well, corn ethanol is worse than the gasoline it replaces in terms of carbon footprint when taking land use…

[deleted]

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#349

Post by wilkommen »

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.

The existence of monopolies is a political issue, and it is a political problem that must be resolved in order to restore any semblance of a free market in the United States.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#350

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #348
thinkcontext wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US produces an unbelievably enormous calorie surplus way beyond what is needed for the health of the country and in fact its detrimental. The biggest is not even used as food, over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That's an amount of land that's truly beyond comprehension. Its a horrible program as well, corn ethanol is worse than the gasoline it replaces in terms of carbon footprint when taking land use…

[deleted]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN