Farmageddon

[KenH]

"America’s farm sector has been devastated by ongoing trade wars with countries such as China, low commodity prices, foreign competition for markets, higher input costs, weather and other factors.
...
Another ongoing issue has been President Donald Trump’s trade war with China. It’s been reported that the Chinese have not bought American produced soybeans this year and have been pouring money into countries such as Brazil and Argentina to help establish soybean farms in those countries.

Argentina’s economy had been in a freefall, but the Trump administration recently authorized a $20 billion currency swap with the country replacing pesos with U.S. dollars which has helped to stabilize the country’s economy. Haynie said farmers are getting hit “from both sides” as the U.S. stabilizes the economy of a foreign government that is rapidly eating up shares of the international soybean market – replacing American farmers.
...
Another problem for some row crop farmers is the end of the USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) program, Haynie said. The program, purchased billions in U.S. farm goods and other products and delivered them to developing nations and disaster areas, was ended by the Trump administration. When crops such as rice are milled, some of what is produced isn’t ascetically pleasing for customers but there’s nothing wrong with the rice. USAID would buy this rice and then deliver it to food insecure people around the world.
...
Wells said the agriculture economy has been in turmoil for several years. He said if something doesn’t change, as many as 30% of all farms in Arkansas could be shuttered by next spring.
...
According to an Oct. 6 report from the Farm Bureau, the U.S. has lost more than 140,000 farms from 2017 to 2022, and an additional 20,000 in the previous two years."

- rest of article at 'Farmaggedon': Government shutdown deepens agriculture sector disaster - Talk Business & Politics

 

[Some Rando]

I find this discussion interesting, but, I confess relative ignorance with the issues. In a way, this sounds more like a hit-piece against Trump than any serious discussion of issues. I ran across this article which speaks to the larger issues we may be confronting.
Some snippets from the article: All emphasis mine.

-"There’s little prospect of those (soybean) sales ever coming back, as China has already found replacement soybeans from Brazil and Argentina. Without that export market, the American farm economy is in deep and immediate trouble. Yet there are more profound problems revealed by this crisis: namely, an attachment to large-scale monocrop farming and a corresponding habit of passing farm bailouts when this leads to disaster—as it often does. In the past year, two farm aid packages have been passed, and another is likely. But without deeper reform, this will bank up even more problems for the future.-"

-“We published this report because this is really capturing some of the resiliency issues that we're concerned about with this system, where we really are dependent on an overproduction of certain crops, and those crops are very reliant on a handful of global trade partners,” Sarah Carden, Farm Action’s research and policy director, told the Prospect.

-"Though these payments are meant to help farmers, they actually weaken the agriculture industry, argued Carden. “These programs are still paying out high when market conditions are good, when they’re supposed to pay out big when market conditions are bad.” Inflation then becomes a massive issue that only stands to worsen with each turn of the bailout cycle. Carden points out the unsustainable nature of this pattern: “When farmers get these big payouts, they can capitalize that into equipment and farmland, and that’s driving up prices … they need more bailouts, and so it's a self-perpetuating cycle.”

-As a result of a farm market that is both under-regulated and over-subsidized, a huge nation with some of the most productive land in the world can no longer supply itself with food. By the end of 2025, the U.S. is projected to run a $47 billion agricultural trade deficit, and it can mostly be attributed to the rising prices of importing essential foods such as fruits and vegetables. A problem that often goes unspoken is that the U.S. relies on other countries to import the foods we don’t think twice about seeing in the grocery store. “Americans should be really concerned that the U.S. is no longer in a position to feed ourselves,” said Carden. What’s worse, our taxes are funneled into bailouts for the farm industry, which mostly ends up in the pockets of major players in the agricultural sector. The average person doesn’t enjoy the benefits of propping up large commodity producers—meat and other food items remain unaffordable.

-First, farmers should be incentivized to grow non-commodity, non-livestock feed crops, such as fruits and vegetables, which will benefit local communities. Improving risk protection for these farmers will encourage the growth of more crops that we can actually eat, and that don’t need to be imported. Doing so requires breaking away from the pattern of automatically bailing out the agricultural sector every time it implodes, which Farm Acton highlights as another priority. Federal funding instead should be transferred to programs that encourage healthy food production and resilience on farms.

Any way, I'm not really trying to debate as I am hardly qualified to do so, but, I find it interesting as a discussion and I'd like to hear more from any of you who may know more about these issues.
This article found at America Bet the Farm on Soybeans. Then Came Trump.

 

[KenH]

this sounds more like a hit-piece against Trump

Criticizing President Trump or his policies does not automatically make something a "hit-piece". The MAGA(and I am not saying you are part of the MAGA) seem to be awfully thin-skinned about their "Dear Leader".

 

[Some Rando]

Criticizing President Trump or his policies does not automatically make something a "hit-piece". The MAGA(and I am not saying you are part of the MAGA) seem to be awfully thin-skinned about their "Dear Leader".

I think TDS works both ways:
I think Trump fetishists are thin-skinned.
I think Trump despisers are thin-skinned.

I think that half of the world would criticize Trump if he risked his life to save a drowning baby whilst discovering the cure for cancer.
I think that half the world would defend Trump if he oh, say.....refused to even consider making good on his campaign promise to release the Epstein files whilst feasting on puppies.

 

[KenH]

I think TDS works both ways:
I think Trump fetishists are thin-skinned.
I think Trump despisers are thin-skinned.

Well, as a minarchist I wouldn't give a plug nickel for both the Democratic and Republican political parties and all of the politicians in Washington - the president, and almost all of the members of the U.S. Senate and almost all of the U.S. House of Representatives. The only two currently in federal office that I like are U.S. Senator Rand Paul and U.S. Representative Thomas Massie.

 

[Some Rando]

Well, as a minarchist I wouldn't give a plug nickel for both the Democratic and Republican political parties and all of the politicians in Washington - the president, and almost all of the members of the U.S. Senate and almost all of the U.S. House of Representatives. The only two currently in federal office that I like are U.S. Senator Rand Paul and U.S. Representative Thomas Massie.

I tend to agree....
Then, as a "minarchist" what caused you to post an article criticizing how a government shut-down has harmed (some) farmers by halting massive Federal subsidies to private businesses which are growing crops Americans neither need nor want but rather sell to the Communist Chinese? And USAID"

Isn't there an argument to be made to massively curtail, if not entirely eliminate, Federal farm subsidies? And USAID?

 

[KenH]

Isn't there an argument to be made to massively curtail, if not entirely eliminate, Federal farm subsidies?

Yes, and I made the case back in a 2014 state-wide televised debate in Arkansas when I was the Libertarian Party nominee for the fourth district of Arkansas for Congress against various kinds of federal government largesse. Any farm subsidies should be handled by the various states based on what is allowed in their respective state constitutions.

The main reason I posted the OP was for the third paragraph in the lead-off post about the federal subsidies to Argentina, as I am opposed to all federal subsidies of any kind to ANY foreign nation for any reason.

I also know I am yelling at clouds, as any adherence to the U.S. Constitution, other than for organization purposes, is long gone.

 

[Some Rando]

Yes, and I made the case back in a 2014 state-wide televised debate in Arkansas when I was the Libertarian Party nominee for the fourth district of Arkansas for Congress against various kinds of federal government largesse. Any farm subsidies should be handled by the various states based on what is allowed in their respective state constitutions.

I am likely to agree:
I was just reading this article: 9 Farm Subsidy Myths Pushed by Special Interest Groups

The main reason I posted the OP was for the third paragraph in the lead-off post about the federal subsidies to Argentina, as I am opposed to all federal subsidies of any kind to ANY foreign nation for any reason.

I am not sure I can completely agree with this: Strictly speaking this isn't a "subsidy" as it was a currency trade of $20 bn in US dollars for $20bn in Pesos.

I also know I am yelling at clouds, as any adherence to the U.S. Constitution, other than for organization purposes, is long gone.

This became true when Abraham Lincoln declared war on his own country, actively encouraged mass war crimes and completely threw the US Constitution in the garbage can, all for the sole purpose of massively increasing the power of the US Federal government, specifically in many cases to create massive protective tariffs and Federal cash subsidies to private industries such as railroads, manufacturers and similar infrastructure.

But, this is why it seems like a "hit-piece" to me.
Fundamentally, everything the article argues for is supposedly something you are against:
Except for the one sentence about Argentina which is an attack on a Trump administration initiative.

 

[KenH]

I am likely to agree:
I was just reading this article: 9 Farm Subsidy Myths Pushed by Special Interest Groups


I am not sure I can completely agree with this: Strictly speaking this isn't a "subsidy" as it was a currency trade of $20 bn in US dollars for $20bn in Pesos.

This became true when Abraham Lincoln declared war on his own country, actively encouraged mass war crimes and completely threw the US Constitution in the garbage can, all for the sole purpose of massively increasing the power of the US Federal government, specifically in many cases to create massive protective tariffs and Federal cash subsidies to private industries such as railroads, manufacturers and similar infrastructure.

But, this is why it seems like a "hit-piece" to me.
Fundamentally, everything the article argues for is supposedly something you are against:
Except for the one sentence about Argentina which is an attack on a Trump administration initiative.

My favorite president is Grover Cleveland. The only president since them that I have liked is Ronald Reagan.

Again, I repeat, simply disagreeing with President Trump does not make anything a "hit-piece".

 

[Some Rando]

My favorite president is Grover Cleveland. The only president since them that I have liked is Ronald Reagan.

Again, I repeat, simply disagreeing with President Trump does not make anything a "hit-piece".

You did not "simply disagree" with Trump.

I "disagree" with Trump:
I wanna know what's in the Epstein files, and I'm not forgetting about it, no matter how badly he wishes I would. And, I will be critical of him until he honors his promise to do so.

You, however, posted a hyper-liberal interventionist liberal screed which was critical of Trump. That isn't "simply disagreeing".

I agree that any president who vetoes practically everything that comes his way is a hero, and Cleveland is a good one.
I think my favourite is probably Coolidge because of his tendency to veto whatever increased Federal power and was fiscally irresponsible.

Ronald Reagan MASSIVELY extended Federal power and over-reach, spent like a drunken sailor and gifted to the Nation the Satanic practice of no-fault divorce, which will be the death of Western civilization.
He didn't like communists, so, maybe that's nice.

Again, I know that "simply disagreeing" with Trump does not make anything a "hit-piece".

However, Mining a 10 paragraph hyper-intrusive screed which promotes Federal over-reach, the spending of billions in Federal largesse to "private" businesses, and the spending of billions of tax-payer dollars to promote one business over another in order to promote........one sentence.... of criticism of Trump might be interpreted by someone who tends to believe that "Libertarians" don't like that kind of thing, as a "hit-piece" against Trump.

That entire article promoted two basic propositions:
1.) Trumps tariff-war is bad for American businesses.
This proposition is about 10%-20% of the article's concern
(A true libertarian could reasonably get behind that proposition, and it's reasonable to post it)

2.) The suspension of billions of Federal dollars in government meddling in the economy to promote (and favour) one particular money crop over against another is a bad thing. Furthermore, it would be best if the Federal government immediately re-convene in order to delegate Federal largesse to favour a particular money-crop [soy in this instance] in order to manipulate global prices of a particular government subsidized commodity.
This proposition is about 80-90% of the article's main concern.

(I cannot imagine a genuine libertarian getting behind this idea unless he suffered some form of TDS)

TDS effects practically EVERYONE. It works absolutely both ways, Trump hater or Trump worshipper.....
You all have it, you just don't know it.

 

[KenH]

You, however, posted a hyper-liberal interventionist liberal screed which was critical of Trump. That isn't "simply disagreeing".

one sentence.... of criticism of Trump might be interpreted by someone who tends to believe that "Libertarians" don't like that kind of thing, as a "hit-piece" against Trump.

Your harangue is why I find it distasteful to discuss anything that might run up against members of the MAGA or MAGA-fellow travelers. They seemingly cannot calmly discuss a issue with someone they disagree with. In this instance, even mild criticism of bailing out a foreign country seems to be too much for them to handle. And, no, I am not saying you are a member of the MAGA or a MAGA-fellow travelers, as you might just be someone who likes to argue over stuff; I am just making the point as to what my experience with, and observation of, members of the MAGA and MAGA-fellow travelers has been.

Thus, I bid this thread adieu.

 

[Mikoo]

Criticizing President Trump or his policies does not automatically make something a "hit-piece". The MAGA(and I am not saying you are part of the MAGA) seem to be awfully thin-skinned about their "Dear Leader".

Of course as a superior Christian, you are praying for President Trump as required by God's Word.

 

[Mikoo]

Well, as a minarchist I wouldn't give a plug nickel for both the Democratic and Republican political parties and all of the politicians in Washington - the president, and almost all of the members of the U.S. Senate and almost all of the U.S. House of Representatives. The only two currently in federal office that I like are U.S. Senator Rand Paul and U.S. Representative Thomas Massie.

But of course you are praying for them as required by God's Word.