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

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#71

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

loeg wrote: post #53

jmyeet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of taking the wrong lesson from history. The lesson from the last 20 years is that voters consistently vote to people who speak to their interests and their problems. The biggest electoral landslide in this time is Obama in 2008 and second place isn't even close. Obama ran as a progressive. He didn't govern as one but that's not really the point. Although it's a big part of the reason of why we're…

Obama did not run as a progressive, lol. Much of the rest of this is equally ahistorical. Living conditions and wages haven't gotten worse over the past 50 years.

You must be young because nobody who lived through his campaign would say that.

He was anti-war. In 2007-2008. Only a few years when the majority of Democrats voted in favor of the Iraqi War Resolution, something that helped sink Hilary Clinton's 2008 bid. He ran on universal healthcare. He ran on renewable energy. He ran on increased LGBTQ rights.

He won Iowa by 9 doing this. To a war hero. Kamala lost by 13. To a convicted felon who had a track record of screwing over farmers.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#72

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:49 AM UTC

lateforwork wrote: post #28

insane_dreamer wrote: post #18

Quite surprised there wasn't mention of the Trump tariffs on China causing the collapse of China imports of US soybeans, which by the way, has persisted even though the original tariffs were reduced, causing lasting damage to farmers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2026/01/17/china-pur...

Almost 78% of farmers voted for Trump [1]. These are the guys that got Trump elected. Polls show that support for President Trump among farmers remains high, hovering around 50-60%. That means these are the guys that are keeping Trump in power. When support among farmers drops to 20% level GOP legislators will feel emboldened to remove Trump from power. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-farmers-voted-trump-feeling-210…

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 been "gotten rid of"? None of those benefit them in any way. I still can't quite understand.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#73

Post by hsuduebc2 » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:49 AM UTC

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…

At least in Europe they have inproportionally big lobby and food is considered a security issue. If it would not be subsidized it would probably be beaten by much more cheaper imports. You can see they ignored security issue with energy and it backfired pretty bad.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#74

Post by upboundspiral » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:50 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #43

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…

Subsides tend to get absorbed by monopolists of all kind. This is why UBI is a nonstarter. It will just get absorbed by landlords. This is why you need to break up monopolies or tax them. The problem is societal endorsement of monopoly rights all kind to the point of invisibility. Witness any conversations about IP rights and lands. But also farmers are in this situation because they chosen to compete in an overcrowd…

Commodity markets are necessary for survival. If we cannot make them work as a society something is deeply wrong.

Someone needs to be farming the food we all eat... If every farmer decided to just plant saffron who would farm the wheat and rice and vegetables that it is used to season?

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#75

Post by jmyeet » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:53 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #55

jmyeet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of taking the wrong lesson from history. The lesson from the last 20 years is that voters consistently vote to people who speak to their interests and their problems. The biggest electoral landslide in this time is Obama in 2008 and second place isn't even close. Obama ran as a progressive. He didn't govern as one but that's not really the point. Although it's a big part of the reason of why we're…

The lesson is not for me, the lesson is for these farmers who will go bankrupt, lose their farms and land, and commit suicide in some quantities of each. Perhaps don't trust someone who only tells you what you want to hear, and yet never delivers. Most unfortunately, the lesson will fall on deaf ears while we all carry on. A cautionary tale, for sure. Sometimes we trust the wrong people. Fool me once, shame on you. F…

No candidate is owed votes. Candidates must earn votes. If voters didn't vote for your candidate, your candidate failed. The voters didn't fail. The candidate did. And what we have in the modern Democratic Party is an intentional choice not to promise or do anything but to expect votes and simply say "Trump bad" (which he is). That's not a policy platform. And people, rightly, rejected it.

If that creates problems for you (and, let's face it, it creates problems for everyone but the billionaires at this point), you should direct your anger at the candidates not the voters, particularly when the candidate was dogshit with no policies.

Old people dying isn't going to solve this problem. They're being replaced by young (particularly male) voters who are disenchanted, disenfranchised, disempowered and disillusioned because they have nothing to hope for as society is crumbling around the and they have no future.

If you want more people to vote for your candidates, they have to offer them something. It's really that simple.

People not voting for someone who doesn't speak to their issues and offers them nothing is quite literally the least surprising and most predictable outcome.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#76

Post by b112 » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:55 AM UTC

newsclues wrote: post #66

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.

You can't produce an exact amount of food. It isn't an assembly line, it's farming, it's biological.

You need to aim for excess, to ensure enough is produced during drought, animal sickness, and other variability.

What Canada does is ensure there is excess, but not crazy amounts. It also ensures the market price is fair to farmers.

What you call "high food price" we call "farmers not going bankrupt".

And while nothing is perfect, supply management is far better than the alternatives.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#77

Post by 9rx » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:56 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #43

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…

Subsides tend to get absorbed by monopolists of all kind. This is why UBI is a nonstarter. It will just get absorbed by landlords. This is why you need to break up monopolies or tax them. The problem is societal endorsement of monopoly rights all kind to the point of invisibility. Witness any conversations about IP rights and lands. But also farmers are in this situation because they chosen to compete in an overcrowd…

> But also farmers are in this situation because they chosen to compete in an overcrowded commodity market

Hard to predict the future. It was only a few years ago when crop prices were at record highs and some countries were on the brink of starvation because we weren't producing enough community crops.

The cure for high prices is high prices. But also, the cure for low prices is low prices. The older farmers are used to it. It seems the problem right now is that a lot of the younger guys went through an unusually long stretch of good times and have never felt the bad times before.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#78

Post by lateforwork » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:58 AM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #72

lateforwork wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost 78% of farmers voted for Trump [1]. These are the guys that got Trump elected. Polls show that support for President Trump among farmers remains high, hovering around 50-60%. That means these are the guys that are keeping Trump in power. When support among farmers drops to 20% level GOP legislators will feel emboldened to remove Trump from power. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-farmers-voted-trump-feeling-210…

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.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#79

Post by GenerWork » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 2:59 AM UTC

jmyeet wrote: post #71

loeg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama did not run as a progressive, lol. Much of the rest of this is equally ahistorical. Living conditions and wages haven't gotten worse over the past 50 years.

You must be young because nobody who lived through his campaign would say that. He was anti-war. In 2007-2008. Only a few years when the majority of Democrats voted in favor of the Iraqi War Resolution, something that helped sink Hilary Clinton's 2008 bid. He ran on universal healthcare. He ran on renewable energy. He ran on increased LGBTQ rights. He won Iowa by 9 doing this. To a war hero. Kamala lost by 13. To a c…

>He won Iowa by 9 doing this. To a war hero.

He won Iowa by 9 due to the fact that the war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular and the economy was imploding.

Re: Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

#80

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Jan 22, 2026, 3:06 AM UTC

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.

I suppose they've successfully instilled the fear that "our way of life" will be destroyed if they don't vote for Trump, despite 1) being a lie, and 2) a vote that will make things worse for them. It's amazing how powerful these relatively minor cultural issues can be. It certainly makes for interesting case studies for future political science and sociology university (if the humanities survive).