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

351–360 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#351

Post by modo_mario »

nehal3m wrote: post #305
modo_mario wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because their (in)dependence was questioned on various fronts in the context of the american bipartisan system and more specifically the republican party and it's policies aka "the party that hates them". Wrt the subsidies, consumer market and all that i don't have much to add but wrt the migrant workers the point of contention to my knowledge is mostly illegals (regardless of the actual number deported, the perhaps…

I was a bit tongue in cheek in my response. Yes, you're right that (almost famously) farm work is done by a disproportionate amount of illegals, but conflating those with immigrants as a default does injustice to the hardworking people that followed the rules.

>Yes, you're right that (almost famously) farm work is done by a disproportionate amount of illegals, but conflating those with immigrants as a default does injustice to the hardworking people that followed the rules.

I think that shifts a bit when there's potentially more of the former than the later (or even just anything vaguely close to that). Especially when that's the aspect that's been drawing so much focus in this context.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#352

Post by 9rx »

labcomputer wrote: post #340
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…

> Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand. All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm". If you own a farm today (meaning, you didn't go bankrupt sometime in the last 150 years and move on to something else…

> All farmers are rich. You have to understand that "farmer" doesn't mean "someone who works on a farm". It means "someone who owns a farm".

Rich, as in richer than broke? I opened my farm business with a $15,000 (inflation adjusted) investment. That's a good chunk of change, but probably not what anyone is imagining as rich. The average household keeps more than that in their bank account. It is in the realm of something most can afford to do, if they are willing to stomach the high risk.

> If you own a farm today, it is because you were successful at the business of farming.

Even on day one of operating the business? Technically you own one, but if you are bankrupt tomorrow, was that really success in the business of farming? Surely there needs to be some kind of proving period at least?

> To be successful at farming in the last century, you need a lot of land.

Depends on what you want out of it. If your goal is to amass endless assets to sell when you retire, then yes, you need a lot of land (and a lot of debt). If your goal is to provide a tidy income, you can do quite well with a small acreage. And I don't mean some kind of market garden thing, although that is an option too. I mean even plain old commodity farming.

It's a lot like the software industry. You can forego a paycheque to try to build a startup that rains fortunes down upon you when you are ready to let go, or you can get a job that pays a decent salary but will never make you unfathomably rich. A farm that has achieved both isn't unheard of, but generally that requires many generations all having great luck. Not exactly the norm.

Of course, like the software industry, the "startup" sounds like more fun, so that is certainly where most farms try to go. Someone looking for a paycheque can find that doing any kind of job, so this group also needs to have a deep love for farming; not just an interest in finance like the former can attract.

> When Republicans talk about tax cuts (especially the estate tax), who do you think they're talking to? Farmers.

In my country there are exceptions carved out for farmers on that front. The public accepts it because "passing down the family farm" over "corporations buying it all" is considered a social good. Why do you think Republicans have to speak (and even apply, perhaps) in broad terms and not simply say "tax cuts for farmers only"? Do Republicans not like farmers? But if they didn't like farmers, why would they ("secretly") introduce tax cuts for farmers?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#353

Post by wilkommen »

WarmWash wrote: post #48
jwcooper wrote: post #27

The problem isn't with the farmers. The problem is the monopolies that surround the farmers. They buy their seeds from massive corporations that have patents on seeds. They sell their produce to global multi-national corporations that set the prices they'll purchase at. They buy their machinery from John Deere or Case IH at extremely high prices. They have no negotiating power and are squeezed between these massive c…

The fix is more expensive food. Everyone loves the mom and pop businesses but shops at walmart for those rock bottom prices. We can have our fresh family farms back, but you're paying double for your food. We have the system we have because people value cheap/affordable over everything, regardless of what they upvote on the internet.

Not true - the fix is to start enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act, the Sherman Act, and every other piece of legislation already on the books which was written and passed by congress for the purpose of eliminating private monopolies. Walmart and other monopolies are using their monopoly power to put small businesses of all kinds out of business and raise prices at the same time. Here's some info on exactly how they do that: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-secret-scam-drivin...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#354

Post by malshe »

mlrtime wrote: post #216
lateforwork wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a brown American who has to carry passport the moment I step outside my house and hope that ICE goons give me the opportunity to show it if detained, I am all ears to hear about your experiences with racism toward white cis males.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#355

Post by twobitshifter »

FireBeyond wrote: post #316
gruez wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>inferior products like HFCS, [...] prevalence of GM crops The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

What? On HFCS: While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid. Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides. It bypasses our bo…

I still don’t see your evidence of these claims. HFCS is also known as glucose-fructose syrup - it’s not all fructose, either 42% or 55% typically. Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your gut!

So if you are saying fructose is bad, you are saying table sugar is bad in much the same way and that fruits like apples which are high in fructose would be problematic.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#356

Post by tstrimple »

autoexec wrote: post #111
reactordev wrote: post #54

There’s only two meat packers… two. Where are the cattle farmers to go? It’s like this across the industry thanks to monopolies like ConAgra, Tyson’s, etc.

Breaking up monopolies and giving farm workers strong unions would go a long way to improving the situation.

You'll never guess which group is consistently against unions!

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#357

Post by rangestransform »

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.

Orienting policy around individual home ownership just ends up eventually with more people’s voting interests aligned with landowners, and is part of the reason why increasing property values and NIMBYism is so entrenched in American government structures

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#358

Post by silisili »

elsjaako wrote: post #236
silisili wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to realize the vast majority of farmland is in states suceptable to floods, droughts, hurricanes, pests, frosts, etc. You can read stories of an off year where locusts were so bad they darkened the skies, for example. Compounding this, farm equipment is freaking expensive. It's not abnormal for a large farm to have hundreds of thousands in payments on machinery. In a good year they make hundreds of thousands…

You've repeated the part that the parent poster claimed to understand ("I've heard that it's because farming as a business is full of unpredictability"), but skipped over the part they didn't understand ("wouldn't there be a significant market for private insurance?") with the statement that insurance is a parasite. Can you explain more why insurance is a parasite? Maybe a state-run insurance would be better? Subsidi…

Fair! My comment was probably more dramatic than it needed to be, but I was trying to paint a picture as it kinda irks me when a lot people act like farmers are 'welfare queens' just taking money and living the good life. Not that OP did that, but it makes subsidies a 'dirty word.'

Subsidies is a hugely loaded term that would take more than a few comments to even begin to cover, but yes, they do cover those things that you mentioned, but a lot more than that. Heck they even sometimes pay farmers not to grow things at all - we used to get a check not to grow tobacco. I was a child then, I don't remember all the details.

Importantly, subsidies already include a federal crop insurance program that the government pays most of. That would cover most reasons for loss of crops. But there's also payments when say, you had a great year, but prices crashed through no fault of your own. And separate payments for say, farm animals catching disease and dying, or natural disasters. And separate payments for things like the messy situation COVID created. And a lot, lot more.

My comment was mainly with the lens of 'get rid of subsidies and buy your own insurance', and well, we see how well that works with health insurance. "Oh sorry Mr Smith, those cicadas were underground when you bought the farm, pre-existing condition, denied."

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#359

Post by FireBeyond »

twobitshifter wrote: post #355
FireBeyond wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? On HFCS: While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid. Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides. It bypasses our bo…

I still don’t see your evidence of these claims. HFCS is also known as glucose-fructose syrup - it’s not all fructose, either 42% or 55% typically. Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your…

Table sugar is "bad". HFCS is worse.

- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23181629/ - countries with higher HFCS availability had higher T2D prevalence, and the association persisted after adjusting for country-level BMI and other factors.

- https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1... - randomized trial in overweight/obese adults comparing diets including HFCS vs comparator sweeteners under structured conditions

> Glucose and Fructose often go together in your body, so the signal would be there. In your gut, sucrase breaks sucrose (table sugar) into glucose and fructose. In drinks, when sucrose is exposed to CO2 and other acids it turns into fructose and glucose before it hits your gut!

Nothing in this contradicts me. But the more fructose versus glucose, the more hepatic processing, and the fewer hormonal signals, leading to increased ingestion.

It's not that one is objectively "bad and only bad", its that our metabolism is not tuned to such a heavy fructose vs glucose ratio.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#360

Post by gruez »

FireBeyond wrote: post #316
gruez wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>inferior products like HFCS, [...] prevalence of GM crops The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad.

What? On HFCS: While glucose is used by nearly every cell in the body and has tight regulation by insulin, fructose is largely processed by the liver, where it more easily is converted into fat, triglycerides and uric acid. Intrinsically this messes with our bodies insulin resistance, for a start, contributing to diabetic issues, as well as increased fatty liver disease, and elevated triglycerides. It bypasses our bo…

>Carrying on from that, contrary to your statement, HFCS has absolutely been linked in multiple studies to increased obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

The question isn't whether HFCS causes those ailments, It's whether it's worse than the alternatives. It's not as if for lack of HFCS, coke will disappear from store shelves and everyone is going to drink water, for instance. Otherwise it makes no sense to call out HFCS specifically. It'd be like hemming and hawing about how unhealthy coke is, but turning a blind eye to pepsi.

>but as of 2022, there is no scientific consensus that fructose or HFCS has any impact on cardiometabolic markers when substituted for sucrose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#Healt...

Post reply on HN