Corn Field Fires

[HawkGold]

Nostalgic throwback concept.

1) Farm operations will never be gone, period. They will be absorbed into larger operations, but that ground will never sit idle.

2) The concept of losing the family farm and the evil of large farms is a total bs idea. It's pillow talk for ag lenders and grain elevator managers.

People bitch about losing the "family farm" to the evil 15-20,000 acre corporate farms.

L

O

L

Go back 150 years. This nation was blanketed in people who actually were family farmers planting ten acres of land and selling their grain to local people who milled it locally and sold that food locally. But as implements came along, all of a sudden a few rich farmers had 25 acres of ground because they could get it harvested in time now.

Then the internal combustion engine came along and now there were some rich folks who had the machines first, and outcompeted the 25 acre guys and bought up their "family farms." Then they had 75 acres of ground, a couple farm hands, and were the new evil empire ruining the common farmer.

Fast forward through about twenty iterations of that and now the average "family farm" guy is on 1,000 acres with two combines, two 1,000 bushel grain carts, and 3 semis, bitching and moaning and complaining that their "family farms" are being put out of business by that one rich guy in the county who can buy everyone's ground with cash instead of getting a loan.

It's bull--------shit. All of it. The people whining now were the evil landowners of the previous generation and so on and so on and so on all the way back to the first Iowa homesteads.

And let's not even start with the people who pretend that America's farmers are basically cooking our suppers and putting the food in our mouths for us out of the goodness of their hearts and the sweat of their brows. It's an industry. An industry that cannot function even one bit without accountants, bankers, fuel producers, veterinarians, equipment manufacturers, lawyers, seed companies, doctors, internet providers, transportation, CHINA, cattle farmers, and ethanol plants. Take any one of those out of the equation and the house falls down. This ain't Ma and Pa out there handpicking corn and grass-feeding ten cows so you and I can survive the winter.

Grain farmers aren't putting a damn thing on our tables. Hell, the vast, overwhelming majority of every year's crop goes to ethanol, Mexico, Japan, and cattle feed. Cattle feed us though, you say? Yep they do. After those cattle have passed through the millions of workers' hands in hundreds of industries who produce, sell, and transport them to the meat case or Stouffer's frozen lasagna. Not a single kernel of field corn goes "on your table," folks.

I'm sure glad there aren't "family car manufacturers," or "family hospitals," because of obvious cost, quality, and safety issues. I don't know why everyone loses their damn minds about corporate farming.

Though I wouldn't use your words we agree a lot in concept.

80 percent of food worldwide us produced locally. What Midwest farmers produce isn't actually food.

I do have 2 organic farms that do go directly to food production. Corn, soy wheat rotation. My most profitable farms and it not even close.

 

[HawkGold]

No, it's crony capitalism in its purest form. Communism in its purest form reallocates land ownership to the collective and starves a nation when productivity plummets. Have you read the history of China under Mao or Soviet Russia under Stalin? Fucking disasters, bruh. Absolute, unmitigated disasters. American politicians of all stripes have learned a cardinal rule - take whatever action is necessary to ensure a bumper crop.

Correct. Most don't know this but most Soviet leaders were a type of crony capitalists who got rich enslaving others in the system. They are the filthy rich capitalists today.

 

[Fryowa]

No, it's crony capitalism in its purest form. Communism in its purest form reallocates land ownership to the collective and starves a nation when productivity plummets. Have you read the history of China under Mao or Soviet Russia under Stalin? Fucking disasters, bruh. Absolute, unmitigated disasters. American politicians of all stripes have learned a cardinal rule - take whatever action is necessary to ensure a bumper crop.

It wants you and the rest of the proles to think it reallocates land ownership to the collective. The bourgeois just call themselves a different name and tell the illiterate public they're all on the same team.

The Farm Bill is purely Marxist even in practice, because it's quite literally taking money from productive people and businesses, calling it public property (taxes) and giving it to those who don't perform a commensurate service (they wouldn't need the welfare if they did...)

 

[Fryowa]

Though I wouldn't use your words we agree a lot in concept.

80 percent of food worldwide us produced locally. What Midwest farmers produce isn't actually food.

I do have 2 organic farms that do go directly to food production. Corn, soy wheat rotation. My most profitable farms and it not even close.

Profitability has to be looked at in the context of scale though, as well.

I have a detailing business on the side that is profitable, but small scale. I make a much bigger profit margin per hour than my day job, but it's effect on the economy is effectively nil.

Just like the profitable farms you mentioned are most likely in their sweet spot because at a larger scale they wouldn’t make the same margins.

 

[Fryowa]

No, it's crony capitalism in its purest form. Communism in its purest form reallocates land ownership to the collective and starves a nation when productivity plummets. Have you read the history of China under Mao or Soviet Russia under Stalin? Fucking disasters, bruh. Absolute, unmitigated disasters. American politicians of all stripes have learned a cardinal rule - take whatever action is necessary to ensure a bumper crop.

Correct. Most don't know this but most Soviet leaders were a type of crony capitalists who got rich enslaving others in the system. They are the filthy rich capitalists today.

Everything on this planet is a self-serving "capitalist," from an amoeba all the way up to humans. The principle of farm welfare is very much communistic. Whether "Communists" actually practice true communism, is a separate topic altogether.

 

[okeefe4prez]

The Farm Bill is purely Marxist even in practice, because it's quite literally taking money from productive people and businesses, calling it public property (taxes) and giving it to those who don't perform a commensurate service (they wouldn't need the welfare if they did...)

That is crony capitalism. Marxism would include abolition of private property rights in land. Our system is anything but that.

I get your point and will agree that these allocation methods have an element of Marxism, but Marx specifically called for abolition of private ownership of farms, so I wouldn't call the whole system Marxist.

It raises a big issue, though, probably the biggest issue facing America, which is that in lieu of trying to actually be profitable, a bunch of businesses and entire industries have focused purely on rent-seeking behavior rather than being economically accretive. It's a helluva lot easier to suck off the government dole than actually competing.

 

[Fryowa]

That is crony capitalism. Marxism would include abolition of private property rights in land. Our system is anything but that.

I get your point and will agree that these allocation methods have an element of Marxism, but Marx specifically called for abolition of private ownership of farms, so I wouldn't call the whole system Marxist.

It raises a big issue, though, probably the biggest issue facing America, which is that in lieu of trying to actually be profitable, a bunch of businesses and entire industries have focused purely on rent-seeking behavior rather than being economically accretive. It's a helluva lot easier to suck off the government dole than actually competing.

We're getting into semantics here, but I think we agree for the most part. The only thing I was calling Marxist/communist was farm welfare and how it doesn't fulfill it's intended purpose anymore. Farming technology and horizontal integration has made it obsolete. 100 years ago there was nothing that could replace unsuccessful farmers hit by bad luck or mismanagement on a large scale, and the country would be in a world of hurt. It was in our national interest to protect the food supply. Now, advances in technology and huge economies of scale have made it so that small operations can be replaced within a few months' time by other market players and those producers under-performing can go away with zero net effect. It's cold and heartless, I get it, but those farmers can wash dishes and become doctors too.

As you alluded to earlier, technology has "solved" the farming game just like Checkers has been solved by computers. Solutions to disasters and problems that once had the potential to decimate farmers have been effectively discovered, to the point where if something happened serious enough to bring agriculture to it's knees in the present day, no amount of gub'ment handouts would help the situation. If the farmers who got their places leveled by the derecho didn't have enough savings and private insurance to survive, they should not survive in the market. Because today, that land would not become idle and would not have to be bailed out.

Essentially, the Farm Bill bails out individuals today instead of providing for national food and economic security as it was intended. That's fundamentally wrong, but what the F can I do about it....

There are plenty of other examples of this that aren't relevant to this discussion.

 

[HawkGold]

Profitability has to be looked at in the context of scale though, as well.

I have a detailing business on the side that is profitable, but small scale. I make a much bigger profit margin per hour than my day job, but it's effect on the economy is effectively nil.

Just like the profitable farms you mentioned are most likely in their sweet spot because at a larger scale they wouldn’t make the same margins.

Fed crop insurance has removed a lot of risk. The hole in your argument is taxes...particularly death taxes...lack of the has created a marketplace where there is little land turnover and only those with a lot of land can buy land.

You should also distinguish between Marxism and socialism. Every time you drive your car on a highway you are benefiting from socialism.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

You know, I don't get caught up in a good farming conversation very often. Good stuff here. I would reiterate that you have to let the free market decide pricing. Certainly you have to negotiate, but tariffs haven't done anything. China just went to Brazil for soy/corn...and others. So, we force the American consumer to pay higher prices on imports, and subsidize farmers to not sell a product. Neither is good. The reality is that Trump is just courting votes now with the subsidies...it's not tied to a policy anymore.

Trump could put together the worst trade deal in history and he would call it exactly the opposite. Substitute pandemic response for trade. He's successful at spinning everything the way he wants it. People getting sick and dying though has been really difficult for him.

 

[Fryowa]

You know, I don't get caught up in a good farming conversation very often. Good stuff here. I would reiterate that you have to let the free market decide pricing. Certainly you have to negotiate, but tariffs haven't done anything. China just went to Brazil for soy/corn...and others. So, we force the American consumer to pay higher prices on imports, and subsidize farmers to not sell a product. Neither is good. The reality is that Trump is just courting votes now with the subsidies...it's not tied to a policy anymore.

Trump could put together the worst trade deal in history and he would call it exactly the opposite. Substitute pandemic response for trade. He's successful at spinning everything the way he wants it. People getting sick and dying though has been really difficult for him.

Bipartisan economists and researchers are all in agreement that for any tariff to have an appreciable affect on China they would have to be in the 75-80% range. When I see the cost difference between my company’s domestic and China-sourced components I’m honestly surprised it isn’t more than that.

I’m not getting pro or anti either political side, btw. Every single one of them would, and will, F up foreign trade.

 

[HawkGold]

Bipartisan economists and researchers are all in agreement that for any tariff to have an appreciable affect on China they would have to be in the 75-80% range. When I see the cost difference between my company’s domestic and China-sourced components I’m honestly surprised it isn’t more than that.

I’m not getting pro or anti either political side, btw. Every single one of them would, and will, F up foreign trade.

Agriculturally, the US is the biggest violator of trade agreements. People think others hate the US because we do so well. In many areas it has to do with agricultural production. For example, US support of milk destroyed the ability of Ecuador to develop and maintain their own dairy industry as it's cheaper to import. Ukraine which does have the best soils in the world gets no help from their Govt and can't complete with US farmers. Their govt will also shut down exports when supplies get low which of course is on them.

The biggest boon is the US Federal Crop Insurance program. Imagine being in business and automatically have your production costs (and much more currently covered with up to 2/3 of the premium paid by uncle sam.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

Fed crop insurance has removed a lot of risk. The hole in your argument is taxes...particularly death taxes...lack of the has created a marketplace where there is little land turnover and only those with a lot of land can buy land.

You should also distinguish between Marxism and socialism. Every time you drive your car on a highway you are benefiting from socialism.

I like calling it welfare capitalism. That way both ends of the political spectrum can hate me.

 

[HawkGold]

I like calling it welfare capitalism. That way both ends of the political spectrum can hate me.

Any friends left? Or should I add right.

 

[chucktownhawk]

Wow, this went sideways in a hurry

 

[smhawk]

I don't think it was great, but I'm not an impartial observer since I'm not in favor of farm subsidies. I'm a free market guy, and like any other industry I feel that it should be the strongest swimmers who survive.

We don't give money to accountants or sales people who lose their businesses due to bad luck or incompetence, we should not do that with anyone else. For many years the justification for farm welfare (the farm bill is communism in it's purest form) was that farmers feed us and are therefore more important that any other profession, but that's no longer true anymore. Their industry is completely reliant on hundreds of other industries.

There is X amount of tillable ground in the US, and there is X amount of perfect yield of product according to the level of technology at any given time (capacity). Whether that's farmed by 100,000 small farmers or 1,000 huge farms is immaterial, and one could argue that larger farms are more efficient, productive, and keep prices more stable.

I always chuckle when people say I should support the Farm Bill because my job benefits from agriculture. That ground is getting planted and harvested whether Ma and Pa Kettle farm it, or Kettle Incorporated does it. Either of the two still need goods and services to help farm that land.

Good points.

I respect wanting a free market. My only issue is when the strongest swimmer creates barriers of entry to the market to fend off competition. Or when they have entirely too much political influence they essentially can write their own laws,legally, thanks to citizen united.

An example of the public market failing us is what we are using to communicate right now likely, through broadband internet. Most prefer cedar falls utilities to any networks mediacom has ever rolled out. Just cause a company is larger doesnt mean theyre going to drive innovation or offer better services.

Possibly the answer for fiber is to just become a public utility like our electricity and water.

But when an industry is truly a free market, then sure get out of the way.

I dont believe we should have bailed out the airlines and not sure i agree we should have done the same for auto industry previously.

 

[okeefe4prez]

I respect wanting a free market. My only issue is when the strongest swimmer creates barriers of entry to the market to fend off competition. Or when they have entirely too much political influence they essentially can write their own laws,legally, thanks to citizen united.

The issue of regulatory capture goes well beyond Citizens United and it is something that both parties love. The scam isn't from donating to campaigns or paying for air time during campaign season. It's side deals and relationships before and after a politburo or swamp rat has power. It's deals with family members. No one gets rich off campaign shit, the jobs these people are campaigning for pay jack shit.

The scam is basically you get an immediate family member who becomes a "money manager" or "asset manager" or whatever (like Paul Pelosi) or maybe you are one yourself like Mitt Romney. Their stock in trade is the family name and connections. Or you get a sweetheart deal when you leave office or power. These guys leaving senior roles at DOJ/AG are getting millions of bucks when they leave. Bill Clinton hit the speaking scene and went from allegedly broke to 9 figures. The Republicans pushed that bankruptcy reform shit with bipartisan support and then you see the guys retire into board seats or consultant roles for banks and shit. The anti-lobbying rules do absolutely nothing to stop that corruption.

Honestly, I don't give a shit if you're a Democrat or Republican, we need a complete from the ground up reformation of ethics rules that basically handcuff the politburos, department heads and their families. Unfortunately, I think it would require drastic pay increases for the positions, but I'd much rather see that than the shit we have worked ourselves into. It is a necessary side effect of having a big government, there is a lot to dole out and people will come up with ways to get on the gravy train.

 

[RocketHawk]

We're getting into semantics here, but I think we agree for the most part. The only thing I was calling Marxist/communist was farm welfare and how it doesn't fulfill it's intended purpose anymore. Farming technology and horizontal integration has made it obsolete. 100 years ago there was nothing that could replace unsuccessful farmers hit by bad luck or mismanagement on a large scale, and the country would be in a world of hurt. It was in our national interest to protect the food supply. Now, advances in technology and huge economies of scale have made it so that small operations can be replaced within a few months' time by other market players and those producers under-performing can go away with zero net effect. It's cold and heartless, I get it, but those farmers can wash dishes and become doctors too.

As you alluded to earlier, technology has "solved" the farming game just like Checkers has been solved by computers. Solutions to disasters and problems that once had the potential to decimate farmers have been effectively discovered, to the point where if something happened serious enough to bring agriculture to it's knees in the present day, no amount of gub'ment handouts would help the situation. If the farmers who got their places leveled by the derecho didn't have enough savings and private insurance to survive, they should not survive in the market. Because today, that land would not become idle and would not have to be bailed out.

Essentially, the Farm Bill bails out individuals today instead of providing for national food and economic security as it was intended. That's fundamentally wrong, but what the F can I do about it....

There are plenty of other examples of this that aren't relevant to this discussion.

Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
This land fed a nation This land made me proud
And Son I'm just sorry there's no legacy for you now
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow

 

[smhawk]

The issue of regulatory capture goes well beyond Citizens United and it is something that both parties love. The scam isn't from donating to campaigns or paying for air time during campaign season. It's side deals and relationships before and after a politburo or swamp rat has power. It's deals with family members. No one gets rich off campaign shit, the jobs these people are campaigning for pay jack shit.

The scam is basically you get an immediate family member who becomes a "money manager" or "asset manager" or whatever (like Paul Pelosi) or maybe you are one yourself like Mitt Romney. Their stock in trade is the family name and connections. Or you get a sweetheart deal when you leave office or power. These guys leaving senior roles at DOJ/AG are getting millions of bucks when they leave. Bill Clinton hit the speaking scene and went from allegedly broke to 9 figures. The Republicans pushed that bankruptcy reform shit with bipartisan support and then you see the guys retire into board seats or consultant roles for banks and shit. The anti-lobbying rules do absolutely nothing to stop that corruption.

Honestly, I don't give a shit if you're a Democrat or Republican, we need a complete from the ground up reformation of ethics rules that basically handcuff the politburos, department heads and their families. Unfortunately, I think it would require drastic pay increases for the positions, but I'd much rather see that than the shit we have worked ourselves into. It is a necessary side effect of having a big government, there is a lot to dole out and people will come up with ways to get on the gravy train.

We all have friends and family on both sides - no one should have blind commitment to one side or the other. Many talking points that are repeated over and over usually act as a smoke screen for pushing bills that truly hurt the public. Regardless if there were plenty of issues before citizen united, i still think its a good thing to repeal.

I agree with much was what you said, answering "how do you fix it?" can be where a lot of disagreement comes in I suppose.

 

[Fryowa]

Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
This land fed a nation This land made me proud
And Son I'm just sorry there's no legacy for you now
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow
Rain on the scarecrow Blood on the plow

I could write the same song about people in the auto industry who had their multi-decade jobs obsoleted by robots.

And a whole bunch of other professions.

 

[Robowe]

I could write the same song about people in the auto industry who had their multi-decade jobs obsoleted by robots.

And a whole bunch of other professions.

John Mellencamp already wrote the song he was referring to.