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

361–370 of 432 posts

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#361

Post by mywittyname »

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…

To a degree, those are also convenient excuses a country uses to protect their own food industries without being overtly protectionist. USA's agriculture industry can readily decimate the leaders in most other markets when they have to compete on price. Between the subsidies, lower standards, and sheer scale, it's practically impossible to compete.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#362

Post by ryandrake »

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…

I think the public still has a wildly inaccurate picture of what a farmer is. When people think "Farmer" they still think of the romantic picture of 1930's Ma and Pa dressed up in work clothes, working the land like in American Gothic or some Norman Rockwell painting. So, of course we should help subsidize good ol Ma and Pa to live off the land! Be kind to these fictional figures in the painting!

The general public are not picturing "Farmer = billion dollar agri-business who's finance department is bigger than some small towns".

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#363

Post by giancarlostoro »

jyounker wrote: post #243
giancarlostoro wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maturity means suspending judgement and listening to people you disagree with, but I feel that's very out of style these days. This applies to all of us these days. I'll lump myself in there too. I don't care what "side" you are in, if you get angry hearing someone you disagree with politically you're not helping matters any. We're too polarized. I wish we could stop with the bickering and find common issues we agr…

Political polarization is an active choice made by right-wing media in the US. Creating dissension and outrage is the bread and butter of Fox News, OANN, etc.

I never watch TV and especially not news on TV, except when its a major debate that they're broadcasting, I always go for raw unedited sources. So if there's a White House announcement, through every presidency I just go to the White House youtube livestream no commentary, just the raw announcement / press briefing (I did this through all of Trump, Biden and now Trump again, though I've decided to take a break, I'm exhausted mentally). So many years ago, I was in a relatives home. They turn on the news, no big deal. I hear what sounds like a news reporter screaming and whining, I dont pay attention for about 5 minutes because I'm busy reading something on my phone, but I notice it. Then I finally look, and I had no idea what leanings they had at the time since I never watch news but it was CNN and she was saying all sorts of things about Trump in what was very obvious anger (why any organization that calls itself News / Journalistic would ever do this is beyond me). I don't think the hateful rhetoric is exclusive to one side. I think the mainstream media is pushing poison on both ends and any time something tragic happens in either direction I always see clips of news reporters from either side saying the most vile things, regardless of what the issue is or who it affects.

In my eyes, TV journalism is mostly dead. I rather stick to local stations that stay focused on things that affect me most directly.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#364

Post by reactordev »

tbyehl wrote: post #310
reactordev wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The U.S. meatpacking industry is dominated by the "Big Four"—Tyson Foods, Cargill, JBS, and National Beef—which control 80-85% of the beef market and significant portions of poultry and pork”

It's so much worse for poultry. My state and the bordering states represent more than half of US production and there's exactly one USDA facility available to independent producers. They're quite small and the cost approaches today's retail price for a whole Tyson chicken. There are USDA exemptions for tiny producers (up to 20K/yr vs 150K+ for a single modern broiler house) to slaughter and package themselves for in-…

Yup, this is called a ladder pull. A business moat. You legally are able but the economics make it so that you physically can’t. Not unless you have outside investment.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#365

Post by gruez »

labcomputer wrote: post #338
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.

> The others I agree with, but there's no evidence that HFCS or GM crops are bad. That's a clever slight-of-hand. Sure, GM crops are not intrinsically bad... it's just that they enable the farmer to spray pesticides and herbicides which are very clearly linked to bad outcomes in people who consume the food. So the only way to ensure you're not eating food sprayed with those things is to choose a non-GM alternative.

>That's a clever slight-of-hand.

>Sure, GM crops are not intrinsically bad... it's just that they enable the farmer to spray pesticides and herbicides which are very clearly linked to bad outcomes in people who consume the food.

You're accusing me of "clever slight-of-hand" when arguably the original offender was the OP. If it's really true that "GM crops are not intrinsically bad", then just say "pesticide ridden crops" or whatever? Isn't it a "clever slight-of-hand" to lump all GM crops together?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#366

Post by _DeadFred_ »

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…

My neighbor rents out his family farm he inherited. The farmer that rented it had his crop fail this year. Because of DOGE's actions, the Government isn't paying out the insurance (insurance that this farmer paid for). The farmer decided to just be done farming (he is old and his farm is small so he rents/farms all the small farms around him). Most of the farms he rented are owned by adult children that inherited the family farm and couldn't bring themselves to sell it but now that they aren't being farmed will probably be sold for rich people estates.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#367

Post by gruez »

nkrisc wrote: post #315
gruez wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Same reps, same meetings every years, nothing happens. Farmer seemed to have all the pieces except the idea that he might want to vote for someone else ... I get it's funny to dunk on dumb Republican farmers voting for the same party for over and over again, and not getting what they want, but it's hardly a farmer or Republican issue. How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (o…

> How is this any different than say, Democratic voters who want medicare for all (or whatever) and not getting that for decades? How is it different? It’s different because people do stop voting for right-leaning Democrats who are all talk, and then they lose and Republicans win, and then the Republican voters get exactly what they voted for (and everyone else gets it too). Republicans control the government, what o…

>How is it different? It’s different because people do stop voting for right-leaning Democrats who are all talk, and then they lose and Republicans win, and then the Republican voters get exactly what they voted for (and everyone else gets it too).

Is there any indication this doesn't happen for Republicans? Around a decade ago there was a huge shift in the Republican party from being pro-globalization to protectionist.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#368

Post by wilkommen »

mlrtime wrote: post #219
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?

Solution is to prosecute private monopolies out of existence, by enforcing the Robinson-Patman Act and the Sherman Act.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#369

Post by lithocarpus »

9rx wrote: post #104
lithocarpus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true to a degree, but, if big ag subsidies were phased out, small local farms would have a better chance of being viable. I guess you could say this raises prices, but on the flip side, small farm prices could start to come down if they were more viable.

> if big ag subsidies were phased out, small local farms would have a better chance of being viable. Maybe. The subsidies that we always hear about is a portion of insurance premiums paid by the government. Presumably if the government pulled out of the subsidy, the risk/reward of insurance would tilt towards not having it. Many farmers already forego having insurance even with the reduced price. Which would mean not…

I'm for subsidizing agriculture that improves long term soil quality and abundance. i.e. kind of the opposite of what most big ag row crops do now.

It's tricky to implement any subsidy in a way that's not exploited by big companies. But a place to start would be not subsidizing synthetic fertilizer and pesticides or anything that degrades soil long term, to encourage farms of every scale to focus on natural long term soil improvement.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#370

Post by ActorNightly »

sellmesoap wrote: post #227
jfengel wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think a lot of it comes down to the rural/urban divide, in a rural setting there's a lot less convinence, fewer services. A need to be more self suficcient. While urban settings have many amenities and services, they also tend to be hotspots for mental illness, crime, lack of housing for those who don't or can't make enough money to afford increasing rent and food costs, it's harder to police (more resources needed…

>A need to be more self suficcient.

The thing is, while most people in rural lands think they are self sufficient, they still depend on technology and government services plenty, as well as money coming in. But yet they are on the high horse of thinking they don't need any of that. Until that changes, they aren't going to change their mind.

>I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide.

Nope. This has been the democratic approach for ages, and the right takes full advantage of the "weak" left. A lot of current bullshit could have been avoided if the Democrats went hard on MAGA instead of trying to unite the country and prosecuted Trump for insurrection to the full extent.

Its time for the complete opposite. People need to get scared again of getting a beating in public, or worse, if they voice their bullshit opinion.

Post reply on HN