Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance • Hacker News Board

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#61

Post by jmyeet » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:34 AM UTC

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 more profit. Because they don't have to charge the same amount to their own farms of course.

It's also why the wealthy and big companies like illegal immigration. It's an endless supply of underpaid workers who can be exploited for even more profits. Document these people and everybody's wages go up.

The only country I can think of that is really effectively managing its agriculture and food supply is of course China. China had some food shortages in the late 20th century and a result food security became a primary concern of the CCP. China has to feed 20% of the world's population and decided that food need to be plentiful and affordable. There were a seris of agricultural reforms through the 1970s to 1990s and then China used its increasing wealth to pay farmers when they had to and subsidize food when they had to to manage the supply. It's managed to the highest levels of China's government [1].

Here we have rent-seeking corporations and billionaires (eg the Resnicks [2]) where subsidies are just a wealth transfer to the already wealthy. food prices are out of control. But nobody cares because the profits have to keep going up.

[1]: https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-food-security-key-chall...

[2]: https://perfectunion.us/how-this-billionaire-couple-stole-ca...

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#62

Post by Loughla » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:35 AM UTC

nemomarx wrote: post #13

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…

Pricing anything into the cost of food would be political poison. Paying farmers to grow nothing is considered preferable to that

It's not always about price. Paying farmers to grow nothing ensures they stay open if we need them to grow something.

When I farmed we had set aside land paid for by the government. When there were predicted shortages on food in the future, we were allowed to farm that ground.

You don't want farmers going under. It just takes one bad year that way and we're all fucked. I've never lived through a proper famine, but Grandpa talked about the dust bowl and depression. It sounded fucking awful.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#63

Post by TimorousBestie » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:35 AM UTC

ggm wrote: post #9

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…

1. Farmers vote. And, Farmers live in states where the value-per-vote is high under both state-vote balancing, and gerrymander. Farming is politically useful. 2. Food is part of national security. It's sensible to keep the sector working. 3. Consumers hate variability in food pricing. So, general sentiment at the shop is not in favour of a strong linkage of cost of production to price, and under imports, there's almo…

I agree with you that the food supply chain is vital to (any country’s) national security, but I don’t think anyone with any real power takes this seriously.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#64

Post by TurdF3rguson » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:35 AM UTC

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.

Paying double for food is a great idea until you realize that now we need to subsidize everyone else just so they can eat.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#65

Post by reillyse » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:37 AM UTC

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.

Europe has a very robust, high quality and cheap food system.

Food is extremely high quality, environment is managed and wealth is distributed with support for small farmers.

High quality food is a fraction in Europe of what you pay in the US.

There is additional cost to taxpayers of Europe but US taxpayers are paying a ton for the US system too but just getting worse outcomes.

This can be done.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#66

Post by newsclues » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:41 AM UTC

b112 wrote: post #37

Canada has a thing called "Supply Management". It means that for some agricultural industries, we limit how many people can produce, for example, milk. This restriction keeps the price of milk stable, and high enough that farmers can make a profit. It may seem strange to some, but the goal is to ensure that we don't have to bail out our farmers. The alternative is as in the US, where anyone can produce milk, and the…

Canada dumps good milk down the drain while people go hungry and suffer high food prices. The supply management system is not perfect.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#67

Post by WarmWash » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:41 AM UTC

reillyse wrote: post #65

WarmWash wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Europe has a very robust, high quality and cheap food system. Food is extremely high quality, environment is managed and wealth is distributed with support for small farmers. High quality food is a fraction in Europe of what you pay in the US. There is additional cost to taxpayers of Europe but US taxpayers are paying a ton for the US system too but just getting worse outcomes. This can be done.

Europeans don't have to eat 1700 calories in a meal to feel full.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#68

Post by mapt » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:42 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #42

mapt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your buffer here is meat. Cattle are tremendously inefficient consumers of grain. Eat your burgers in the bountiful years, then slaughter 75% of the herd in a hardship year, eat well for six months, then spend the next three, four, five years eating more grains while the herds recover. Ethanol is another one. That's the sensible way to do it. Somehow I doubt that it's the way we do it... But maybe the variability is…

Cattle are inefficient consumers of grain , but highly efficient consumers of grass . Most land used for pasture can't effectively be used for anything else.

We feed the average cow >10lbs of grain and also some alfalfa for every pound of meat we get out right now.

Part of the cull would likely be shifting towards more grass fed production. Another part would simply be prioritizing chicken or pork for a while.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#69

Post by thelastgallon » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:43 AM UTC

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.

A better way to do this to remove the transportation subsidy for big businesses. Trucks do most of the damage to roads (4th power of weight) but consumers bear the brunt of road maintenance. If big vehicles paid their fair share of oil taxes for roads, it will even the playing field for local farmers and businesses.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#70

Post by hombre_fatal » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:44 AM UTC

cperciva wrote: post #42

mapt wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your buffer here is meat. Cattle are tremendously inefficient consumers of grain. Eat your burgers in the bountiful years, then slaughter 75% of the herd in a hardship year, eat well for six months, then spend the next three, four, five years eating more grains while the herds recover. Ethanol is another one. That's the sensible way to do it. Somehow I doubt that it's the way we do it... But maybe the variability is…

Cattle are inefficient consumers of grain , but highly efficient consumers of grass . Most land used for pasture can't effectively be used for anything else.

This argument might sound good, but those cattle are fed crops, not just sunshine and the grass they walk on.

Most crops grown in the US are used as animal feed. They are dependent on arable land that could be used to grow food for humans directly and much more efficiently. We just like the taste, so we accept the inefficiency.