Trump Thread 2.0

[phillipj]

More waxing about how much we think we know about farming........... I guess I should not expect much else around here

The Article gave more insight into the bailout. Post others, please!

I think it's all good because it forced some conversation here -- I see a lot of hypocrisy about 'socialism' and some kind of mythical allegiance to a 'free market' that doesn't exist. I also see a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to Tariffs and this trade war.

I don't think we are going down any great road. I see a lot of right-leaning farmers defending what is going on momentarily, but if you really get deep with them, they don't like the idea of being bailed out and they don't like what's going on with the instability and the tariff who's dick is bigger contest.

Harley and Whiskey and a ton of others are being killed on Trump's trade war-- seriously, shouldn't they be bailed out too?

Does anyone really believe that the bailouts are just short term relief and China and everyone else is just going to bow to us and play however we say?


What I see is somebody who has very little depth in trade wrecking things for tons of people, businesses. This all demands tact and knowledge not bully and ego and blame.

[E30 Wagen]

No, he was pointing out your inconsistencies.

You're OK with subsidies as long as they benefit you or family (Farming or Oil & Gas). IE, the rest of us helping pay for you.

But you're not OK with subsidies, healthcare for example, that don't directly benefit you.

I'm not sure the Oxford Dictionary could paint a clearer picture of a hypocrite.

In his defense he did explain how the farming subsidies benefit all of us by keeping our food costs low. I mean, how would any nation survive if it can't feed itself? Farmers are the backbone of civilization, not MDs.

[naplesE30]

Farm Subsidies are more often than not intended to keep prices up. Now they are more or less used to keep pricing stable. Like the fed reserve sort of. Farmers became so efficient with new technologies that if every farmer planted and grew as much crop as their land allowed the pricing would plummet. In turn many farmers would lose $$ and farming would be a losing proposition. This would result in farms going under, and much less planted acreage, which in turn would drive prices higher. Food prices would be in constant peaks and valleys. Many subsidies were/are used historically to pay farmers not to plant acreage. This in turn insured that supply and demand were in sync, and not out of balance in one way or another.
They are used to help everyone, not just farmers. We all benefit by having predictable food prices. No farmers are getting rich of off subsidies. They just give the farmer an better idea of what their return on investment will be come harvest time.

[decay]

It helps to be well rounded when it comes to life


Grew up on a working farm and was employed by the 2 neighboring farms that were 10 times the size of ours. Little something I have forgotten more about than many people will ever know.... I do know a lot has changed in the last 25 years in the business as well

sure, go ahead and double down on being the know-it-all without actually contributing anything new to the conversation- that's what we've come to expect from you, too.

[mrsleeve]

Napels already hit the high points in greater detail than I did why would I need to say it again ???

[mbonder]

They are used to help everyone, not just farmers. We all benefit by having predictable food prices. No farmers are getting rich of off subsidies. They just give the farmer an better idea of what their return on investment will be come harvest time.

So you're telling me that it's ok for the government to essentially guarantee the costs and benefit of a particular industry? Interesting.

So it would be ok for the government to guarantee the cost of my medical care...

The inconsistencies abound.

[mrsleeve]

Stabilization of the food supply is one of the hallmarks of human society

Stabilization of the food supply allows for the bulk of the population to persue other endeavors vs trying to grow all your own food in window boxes on the fire escape and spending an similar amount of time processing it into stuff you can eat. Allowing a few to make all the food has benefited the greater society by making so we all dont have worry about our own subsistence farming, and can invent I pads, medical devices, research stuff pontificate about climate change for a living, or any other pass time to earn a living

Edit; for profit medicine is a double edged sword, and is not with out it's pit falls I agree, without it though we would not have the level of advancement we have attained in the last 70 years.

[naplesE30]

So you're telling me that it's ok for the government to essentially guarantee the costs and benefit of a particular industry? Interesting.

So it would be ok for the government to guarantee the cost of my medical care...

The inconsistencies abound.

I’m not telling you one way or the other what’s ok or not. That’s up for you to decide. I’m telling you and any others who seem to mistake or misrepresent the purpose of farm subsidies why they exist and their use. If you like dirt cheap prices one year and sky high the next, lobby your rep to remove them. However, after a few years of low pricing, the price per bushel would skyrocket as family farms are inevitably bought on the cheap by large Agro businesses and massive tracts of acreage would be left fallow to manipulate pricing on an industrial scale.

Unlike healthcare, farming is suspect to yearly and seasonally variabilities that can massively influence pricing for years to come. Subsidies are meant to try to take the instability or sting out of a highly volatile industry. Med pricing does not have the external pressures of farming. Also the federal govt is not setting/influencing as heavily the prices for bushel of crops as Medicare does with medicines and services. Two completely different industries with two completely different methods of management as they should be. Trying to equate them is either intellectually dishonest or ignorance.

[Wschnitz]

Pretending family farms still exist in a sum large enough to matter is also misleading.

[Melon]

Looks like y'all are...

...farming for a debate...

...I'll see myself out.

[naplesE30]

Pretending family farms still exist in a sum large enough to matter is also misleading.

Not sure if you are familiar with actual farming community vs watching documentaries.

https://ussoy.org/97-the-percentage-of-u-s-farms-that-are-family-owned/

Family farms are a bit more than a blip.

Anyway this subject prob deserves its own thread if you would like to continue discussion.

[phillipj]

It's just incredibly ridiculous & ironic how this idiot President is running around crowing about how terrible 'socialism' is and how he alone will defend 'the free market' in his tweets and TV appearances all the while slapping Tariffs on everyone and handing out bailouts to only those he picks and chooses.

It's crazytown.

[mbonder]

I’m not telling you one way or the other what’s ok or not. That’s up for you to decide. I’m telling you and any others who seem to mistake or misrepresent the purpose of farm subsidies why they exist and their use. If you like dirt cheap prices one year and sky high the next, lobby your rep to remove them. However, after a few years of low pricing, the price per bushel would skyrocket as family farms are inevitably bought on the cheap by large Agro businesses and massive tracts of acreage would be left fallow to manipulate pricing on an industrial scale.

Unlike healthcare, farming is suspect to yearly and seasonally variabilities that can massively influence pricing for years to come. Subsidies are meant to try to take the instability or sting out of a highly volatile industry. Med pricing does not have the external pressures of farming. Also the federal govt is not setting/influencing as heavily the prices for bushel of crops as Medicare does with medicines and services. Two completely different industries with two completely different methods of management as they should be. Trying to equate them is either intellectually dishonest or ignorance.

I get that they are two separate industries, but it's not that difficult to see the similarities between what you just described as the possible scenario in farming as what actually has happened in the medical industry.

The rise of a few giant corporations controlling the means of production has essentially allowed medical corporations to dictate the pricing however they want. It's fairly obvious when you look at the cost of prescriptions in America versus the same prescriptions in the rest of the world where the governments of foreign countries have regulated their costs (essentially the same thing that farm subsidies do here in the US to stabilize prices of food).

Without private medical insurance (which some people in the US can't afford), the cost of simple prescriptions for common ailments is astronomical. For example, insulin, which is necessary for people with diabetes, for a 10mL bottle it costs somewhere in the range of $400-500 in the US, that same bottle costs $21 in Canada. Another example is Nexium, used for acid reflux. In the US, one pill costs $7.78, in Australia, New Zealand, and Turkey, these pills cost $0.37.

These medications aren't for exotic diseases that not many people have, which would drive up the cost of producing them. They are used by millions of people worldwide. The pricing of these drugs is obviously not seasonal, so it isn't quite like the farming industry, but the first half of what you described is exactly what has happened here, a few players have controlled the industry and decided that they can manipulate the supply and the pricing to make profits far beyond paying for the development of the drug.

Where's the dishonesty in this conversation or the ignorance?

[mrsleeve]

Pretending family farms still exist in a sum large enough to matter is also misleading.

yet again you have no idea what your sputtering on about, and think that big bad corporations have taken over. You have been to WI nearly all those "big farms" you drive by are still Family owned operations. Family farms account for about 99% of all farming operations and are responsible for about 90% of all the AG. production in the US, I guess that is not a large enough sum to quantify for you then???

https://nifa.usda.gov/family-farms

From the USDA.... Small family farms account for nearly 2m of the nearly 2.1m Family owned farming operations in the USA. While much of the production comes from the larger of these family owned operations to say the family farm dose not exist is beyond ignorant of the facts surrounding where your food comes from, but also very "we are the 99%" "down with the corporations" intellectually dishonest

Under this definition, the National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Census of Agriculture reported that family farms account for almost 96 percent of the 2,204,792 farms in the United States.

The census makes the following useful distinctions among these family farms, based initially on their gross annual sales:

Very large family farms (101,265) gross over $500,000
Large family farms (86,551) gross between $250,000 and $500,000
Small family farms (1,925,799) gross under $250,000

[saucers]

it's just incredibly ridiculous & ironic how this idiot president is running around crowing about how terrible 'socialism' is and how he alone will defend 'the free market' in his tweets and tv appearances all the while slapping tariffs on everyone and handing out bailouts to only those he picks and chooses.

It's crazytown.

this.