The inputs to farming, especially seeds, fertilizer and machinery, are controlled by monopolies and near-monopolies. There have been too many mergers.
On the sell side, there's monopsony or near-monopsony, with very few big buyers.[1] Farmers are caught in the middle, with little pricing power on either side.
There's not much question about this. There are antitrust cases, but with weak penalties and weak enforcement.
[1] https://equitablegrowth.org/competitive-edge-big-ags-monopso...
If at least all those bad farming practices would lead to very affordable food, then one could make an argument for it... but currently the US just does worst of two worlds.
The things which makes this a no go in the EU is ironically not the chlorination per-se, but the fact that chlorination is needed.
Like basically the EU thinks the way the US allows farmers to keep and raise chickens is so bad/unsanitary that chlorinating them isn't sufficient to make them safe for (repeated) consumption.
Which makes sense given that some of the things involved can lead to (non exhaustive list):
- non healthy chemicals _in_ the meat, not just on it
- increase in parasite, bacteria or virus infection _in_ the meat
- increased chance bacteria have some form of antibiotic resistance or other mutations
- not wanting to support "that" level of animal abuse (which is not just illegal but criminal in many EU countries, but also that doesn't mean that EU countries are that much better, they just drew a line on the level of animal abuse they tolerate which is in a different place then the line the US drew, but both are far away from the line animal protection organizations would drew)
> bleached chicken
I Googled for more info, and I found this quote: https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/15/nx...
> Less than 5% of poultry processing facilities still use chlorine in rinses and sprays, according to the National Chicken Council, an industry group that surveyed its members. (Those that still do use a highly diluted solution at concentrations deemed safe.)
> Nowadays, the industry mostly uses organic acids to reduce cross contamination, primarily peracetic, or peroxyacetic acid, which is essentially a mixture of vinegar and hydrogen peroxide.
> prevalence of GM crops
I'm sure it's just salt and water.
I don't understand why consumers will pay for a chicken breast which has been injected with salt water. It comes out when you prepare it.
Also some people don't season food with salt (you can add salt at the table if you really need it). Meat with added salt taste very salty to me.
sanitary conditions
---
Someone else can argue the morality, ethics, economics, and politics of it all, but VERY simply, US Federal Government Agencies are machines for redistributing wealth from cities to rural areas.
Rural America voted quite heavily to stop those subsidies. That's what efficiency means.
---
Maturity means suspending judgement and listening to people you disagree with, but I feel that's very out of style these days.
It seems like this whole year has been implementing policy after policy that screws over agriculture.
USAid (big purchaser) gone. 40 billion sent to Argentina. Antagonize Canadians (Canadians !!) so they boycott American produce. Tarif China so they'll reciprocate on soy beans. Deport farm workers. Tarif imports of steel so machine costs go up. Tarif fertilizer so production costs go up. Tarif everything else to reduce consumer spending power.
Despite all this farmers will continue to vote republican this year, and in future years. I presume they have reasons, but I confess they are hard to understand.
It works. And it will keep working.
More importanly there's a rift between "I care" and "I'm paid to care" that's common for social support, just like it's common for the tech industry.
All this is an over simplification, but I'd love for us to do better as a whole. I think that starts with people using their empathy and curiosity to understand the divide. Maybe through understanding we can be less judgemental of each other and find ways to work together, or at least understand and build boundaries to make the divide more livable.
What is the alternative when the Democrats appear just as much beholden to corporate finance, and position themselves as the party for city dwellers?
I also disagree on the wealth redistribution. Government agencies are managers of risk. *
Is there a risk to the country's food security if farmers go bust on mass? Then the Government needs to mitigate that risk. Fairly simple.
* This was the explanation from the director general of non-US primary industries department as to the whole reason they exist. Managing biosecurity risks are particularly important, but also managing fishing stocks and helping farmers mitigate their risk.
If the Republicans get voted out and become powerless, they (or the successor party) will have to be better to regain power.
Anything else is some accelerationist nonsense.
she regularly does episodes about politics in regards to farming.
Sure, there are still some small farms.. but there are also rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for status and financial benefits(farms get all sorts of special treatment for taxes, bankruptcy and inheritance).
When I see the amount of exploits the wealthy use to avoid taxes and maximize profits, I realize working a 9-5 job is for fools, considering how much taxes I'm paying on my salary.
The corruption will continue but at least I don't have to continue to feed it.
> rich folk like the Treasury Secretary who maintain farms for ... financial benefits
> Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is an investor in North Dakota soybean farmland but has stated he has divested from his holdings to avoid conflicts of interest, addressing criticisms regarding his personal financial stake in agriculture. > 40 billion sent to Argentina
Source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48780
> In October 2025, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced U.S. financial support for Argentina, including a $20 billion currency swap line financed through the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).
> Last Friday, Argentina fully repaid the US$2.5 billion it obtained from a US$20-billion swap line with the Trump administration
> “Our nation has been fully repaid while making tens of millions in USD profit for the American taxpayer,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wrote in a Friday post on X.
So what is a currency swap. Well any swap is an agreement with at least two legs, a pay leg and a receive leg. The normal type of swap is a interest rate swap so say I agree to pay you every month 3% fixed interest on 10m USD and you agree to pay me some floating rate (say 3m usd libor + 100bps) interest on the same amount. So every month we do a calculation where if libor+100 is greater than 3 then I pay you otherwise you pay me. We might do this to hedge our interest rate exposure. Like say you're a bank and I'm a bank and most of my borrowers are fixed rate mortgages and most of my savings accounts pay floating rate interest. I want a hedge so the floating rate doesn't end up costing me too much.
A currency swap is like that but with different currencies. So say we change things so it's 10m USD on one side and 15m EUR on the other side and we agree to exchange principal amounts. So that sets an exchange rate of 1.5 as well as the interest rate thing from before. If interest rates or exchange rates now move, this provides a hedge. So the hedge now is not just against the rate changing but also against the currency moving adversely. Central banks use this to ensure the import/export vs domestic balance of their economy is appropriate given the levels of trade between nations and also as a hedge against adverse currency movements affecting both assets they hold (yes they hold bonds etc) and their outstanding debt (which for the Fed will include "Eurobonds" they have issued in other currencies than USD).
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currencyswap.asp is a general explanation
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb-and-you/explainers/tell-me-mor... is the perspective of a central bank on currency swaps and their use
One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent. They can't rely on government services as much as city folk, because everything and everyone is potentially an hour's drive away. They don't see the effect of their taxes being spent, because their local roads are dirt roads, there's no traffic lights, no police cars[1] or ambulances zipping by on the regular, etc...
Conversely, they do get frustrated by the likes of the EPA turning up -- invariably city folk with suits and dress shoes -- telling them what to do. "You can't burn this" or "You can't dump that!". More commonly "you can't cut down trees on your land that you thought were your property".
Their perception of government is that it violates their God-given rights regularly and gives little in return.
The further the seat of power, the worse their opinion of it. Local councils they might tolerate, state governments they view with suspicion, and the federal government may as well be on another planet.
Hence, their votes are easily swayed by the "reduce federal government" rhetoric.
We all know this is as an obvious falsehood: Trump grew the size of the federal government with his Big Beautiful Bill! So did every Republican government before him for quite a while now!
That doesn't matter. Propaganda works. The message resonates. The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel.
PS: A great example of this are the thousands of unemployed people that lost their coal mining jobs. Trump lied through his teeth and told them they would get their mining jobs back. Hillary told them they could be retrained as tech support or whatever. They. Did. Not. Like. That. They wanted their jobs back! So they voted for Trump, who had zero chance of returning them to employment because they had been replaced by automation and larger, more powerful mining machines. Their jobs were gone permanently, so they doubled down by voting against the person who promised to pull them out of that hole. Sadly, this is a recurring theme in politics throughout the world.
[1] As an example, this is why they're mostly pro-gun! They know viscerally that if someone broke into their property, they'd have to defend themselves because the local police can't get there in time to save them.perception.
>> One common theme has been that farmers are by necessity highly independent.
I think they like to think of themselves as highly independent. But in truth of course they are highly dependent, on city customers for their product, on foreign countries for exports, on federal govt for subsidies (both direct and indirect), on suppliers for machinery, seed and fertilizer, and in some cases on immigrant labor.
Just as we are dependent on farmers. It's all interconnected.
Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies.
They do of course have many legitimate grievances, but I'm not sure that voting for the party that seems to hate them is a winning strategy.
Why tho do you feel the need to defend big agri businesses skirting employment law and pressuring wages downward by bringing in illegal people? I find it a bit weird looking at the US how they seem to kneejerk into different camps depending on what the other side does with some old outliers like bernie who retain their line.
>Ironically they may tolerate local govt, and had federal govt, but they are most dependent on fed govt policies.
I live in a much smaller country but here there's similar pressures at play. I feel like a more nuanced take that farmers either don't voice or don't voice well here is that the federal and EU gov has benefited these big corporate farms they compete with because they're by far the best at siphoning off these various subsidies that farmers supposedly depend on. At the same time gov requirements make it almost impossible to run an smaller independent farm or one that doesn't depend on one of these middlemen to an extreme degree.
I worked for a meat conglomerate here in belgium and plenty of the farmers they dealt with didn't own their own cows (and plenty went under). They essentially rented their business to the company which owned the animals on their land, provided the calf feed made by their subsidiary, employed a load of vets, had an international transport company, had me and others writing software that would automate the mindbogglingly stupid forms and rules for transport (which were interpreted comically differently by regional departments of the federal food safety agency so depending on the jurisdiction you had to do radically different things).
Just the paperwork to run a competitive farm was/would have been impossible to deal with for many of these people and it was so clearly made up by people who never had to deal with the consequences directly.
On the other hand there's also plenty of examples of things like the gov rugpulling with environmental legislation in the netherlands.
Things like caping farms at past nitrogen emissions (benefiting the big ones) after first encouraging farmers to take loans and invest insane amounts into equipment to reduce those emissions.
Not sure if they (no matter if big business or small farm) could find enough American citizens to do those jobs, even if they were better paid...
The farmers would have to pay enough for "seasonal work spending all day doing manual labour in the sun without any AC" to compete with "year round work spending all day stacking shelves in supermarket where the temperature is at consistently in the range that doesn't put off the customers". And if the farmers got the former shelf stackers, then the supermarkets need to find more people to do the stacking. Food prices go up, both wholesale (because the farmers have to pay workers more) and retail beyond that (because so do the supermarkets).
I keep seeing stories about poorer Americans struggling with food prices even without this kind of cycle; but it doesn't end with just those two examples, it's all the low-pay jobs that are inherently more comfortable than farm labour, and if they find themselves short of labour and raise wages they too have to raise prices to balance their books, and whichever professions they in turn get labour from have the same choices, it ripples across the entire economy. Which may be good or bad for other reasons, but it's a massive impact across the entire economy, not something which is an easy one-liner.
Also, despite all those issues, look at this from the point of view of those workers: They've got seasonal work that pays them somewhat more than they'd earn in their home countries, and until very recently that work would not have come with a risk of being deported to a completely different country than they'd come from.
They said immigrant. Why do you feel the need to equate that term to illegals? They are not the same thing.
You are assuming this is an unintended effect, but it is very much the intended effect of bureaucratic rules and the reason large companies and conglomerates constantly lobby for them: they can afford the overhead costs (until the inevitable external disruptor comes around and totally eats their lunch, see europe) and smaller players cannot. These rules are moats built by big companies.
Doubly so for subsidies tied to complex filing and reporting requirements: large companies easily do this (they have department(s) just for handling these larger than whatever department in the government is handling the paperwork), small players can't and miss out.
They are quite aware of taxes because 13.5% of their income on average comes directly from federal subsidies paid by taxes on "city folk".
https://usafacts.org/articles/federal-farm-subsidies-what-da...
> The voters will vote against their own interests over and over and over if they keep hearing something that resonates with what they feel.
Most large farm owners are very well off and are absolutely voting in their own interests for the party whose primary goal is to cut taxes on the wealthiest while cutting government support for the poorest.
The rural working class and poor on the other hand are however often voting against their economic interests, but their economic situation has long been ignored by both partie, so having given up hope for economic change, they often vote on culture/identity issues.
Most family farms (From my area) are land rich. The land is worth a lot, but they never sell it. The farming essentially pays for the land, and maybe a little to live off of. They are NOT raking it in.
Also almost all of them have notes on this land, not owned outright.
In the country it’s like 40% of the farms and 20% of the value. That stat alone shows the real problem, big agricultural is wildly more efficient (without wading into the externalities). And big agricultural gets the lions share of the benefit of the subsidies.
I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing but half the reason these conversations are so circular is that small family farms are not what most agriculture in the US is yet we vote like it is.
My family farm is small enough they alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle, but the land is still worth millions. But they all have notes, good years mean the crop pays the bank and maybe some supplies for next year.
I have some investments that will go up and down $10K on a daily basis. That's just a number in a mainframe somewhere, I don't even notice unless I go look, and even then it doesn't "feel" real. If I have to hand over an extra $1 for my coffee in cash, I feel it viscerally. I grind my teeth. I hate it.
The immediacy and in-person nature of an EPA fine feels a lot worse than some grant that may be little more than an annual electronic deposit in a bank account.
> Most large farm owners are very well off and are absolutely voting in their own interests for the party whose primary goal is to cut taxes on the wealthiest while cutting government support for the poorest.
To be fair to farmers, it's more complicated than that. A lot of farmers are wealthy because the poorer farmers have been squeezed out, often because of the actions of the very governments they voted for. This has caused a lot of consolidation into large conglomerates, which utilise their tax breaks to outcompete smaller farmers, further squeezing them.
If all you know is by listening to people recently on TV then you don't know farmers very well.
One problem in this entire thread is "US Farmers" in one group... The industry is too big to lump them all into one category.
Which only 1h because of federal subsidies as rural communities learn. Without health subsidies many hospitals will close, and it's no longer a 1h drive but a 5h drive.
People often live in a delusion on why things are the why they are - their explanation often is the one that suits them most (also see USAid).
They vote with the one party because they didn't had a lot of problems with it in power and, when they voted something else, it was worse.
Between two evils, people prefer the "familiar" one. Works the same in Europe's "democracies".
Historically, republicans were not making policies good for them. By they promissed to be cruel and that was appealing.
Also, not viewing it as "Come to my side". This isn't star wars, rebellion vs empire.
- impeachment and prosecution for high level corruption (e.g. the Presidential cryptocurrency)
- prosecution of constitution-violating police and Federal paramilitaries, e.g. in Minnesota?
- leaving LGBT people alone legislatively (at this point I'm not going to ask for improvements, just that the situation not be made worse)
This applies to all of us these days. I'll lump myself in there too. I don't care what "side" you are in, if you get angry hearing someone you disagree with politically you're not helping matters any. We're too polarized. I wish we could stop with the bickering and find common issues we agree on and agree on the solutions and push our reps from 'both sides' to fix the issues in a way we can all agree on. The political theater is too exhausting and unhealthy.
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 almost always a source of cheaper product, at the socialised cost of losing domestic food security: Buy the cheese from Brazil, along with the beef, and let them buy soy beans from China and Australia to make the beef fatter. -And then, you can sell food for peanuts (sorry) but you won't like the longer term political consequences, if you do this. See 1) and 2).
China actually imports a lot of food from us, they seem to be the biggest consumer of chicken and pork feet, for example, which we don’t seem to have much use for. The current subsidies are because that export trade, which farmers have depended on and invested in, has basically disappeared now.
Compounding this, farm equipment is freaking expensive. It's not abnormal for a large farm to have hundreds of thousands in payments on machinery. In a good year they make hundreds of thousands. In a bad year they're on the hook for hundreds of thousands. It can take only one bad year to wreck a farm, which is why their suicide rate is so high.
It's hard to imagine as a dev. But imagine you make 200k. Then next year, because of ransomware your boss installed, they tell you you owe 200k through no fault of your own. What would that do to your finances?
Insurance is a parasite. I'm usually against subsidies, but for as something as important as food, it seems reasonable.
“One thing, however, that I will note that Juvenal does not say is that the panem et circenses are either how the Roman people lost their power or how they are held under the control of emperors. Instead first the people lose their votes (no longer ‘selling’ them), then give up their cares and as a result only wish for panem et circenses, no longer taking an interest in public affairs” [1].
[1] https://acoup.blog/2024/12/20/collections-on-bread-and-circu...
The consequences of not being able to produce enough calories is severe. It is much better to overproduce and everyone gets fed than producing just enough and a climate event erases out 20% of our calorie production.
The biggest is not even used as food, over half of corn acreage is used for ethanol. That's an amount of land that's truly beyond comprehension. Its a horrible program as well, corn ethanol is worse than the gasoline it replaces in terms of carbon footprint when taking land use into account. And it raises the price of food. And we even subsidize it multiple times, we subsidize the crop as corn and then we subsidize it as ethanol. Biodiesel and renewable diesel (different products) have spiked in recent years as well, most of that is made from soy, canola, or corn oil. They have similar problems though aren't as bad as corn ethanol.
Another huge negative surplus is the amount of liquid calories, mainly soda, that are consumed. Most nutrition science that I've read points to the enormous amount of liquid calories as the part of the US diet that is driving obesity epidemic. There are of course other aspects to the obesity as well.
Finally, substituting some of the US consumption of beef with chicken and some of the chicken with beans.
To recap US overproduces calories to the point that it hurts the country. It damages the land, the ocean with dead zones, the climate with carbon. We pay for it multiple times in subsidies and with higher food prices. It hurts our health which we pay for in suffering, shortened lives and health costs.
That doesn't mean much without more details. Corn is used as a tool in the crop rotation to enable growing foods for humans to eat. As we learned before ethanol's time in the sun, farmers are going to grow it anyway to support their rotations. The only question is if it is better to recapture that into usable energy or to let it rot out in the field.
> ... when taking land use into account
But if not taken into account? The harsh reality is that ethanol plants are unable to pay cost-of-production-level prices for corn. It now typically costs $5+ to produce a bushel of corn, while ethanol plants generally start to lose money as the price rises above $4.50 per bushel. You're not growing corn for ethanol. You accept selling corn to ethanol buyers when you can't find a better home for it.
Corn especially is a tough one to predict. A couple of years ago yields around here were nearly 100 bushels per acre higher than normal! Even if we put in the mightiest effort to grow exactly the right amount of corn for reasonable food uses, that 100 bushel surprise means a good 1/3 of your crop has no predetermined home right there. Of course, it can go the other way too. If you end up 100 bushels per acre short of what you expected...
Between needing to grow extra to protect against unexpected low yields, combined with unexpected high yields, half to the corn crop having no home (and therefore ending up as ethanol) isn't that far outside of what cannot be reasonably controlled for.
> To recap US overproduces calories to the point that it hurts the country.
That's fair. We don't have the technology to do better, unfortunately. Maybe once LLMs free up software developers once and for all they can turn their focus towards solving this problem?
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 coming from world trade and developing nations.
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.
I don't care to research it further, but I own a small 5 acre farm and can attest that some crops grow in some areas and some don't. So even if you did map it all out on a piece of paper where you'd get all your beans and lentils and whatnots I doubt it would work in real life. Cattle can handle a couple hard freezes. My tomatoes can't.
Indeed the argument to remove beef production has always struck me as an interesting starting point to a longer conversation.
So ok, cattle are gone, and there's now say 30% more grain on the market. Presumably this lowers prices to humans? Do people suddenly eat 30% more bread?
Health, and weight, issues aside (not sure an increase in carbs at the expense of protein is a win), do people just shift to other protein (like chicken). Does this mean a huge oversupply of grain, and a consequent drop in prices?
Let me put it another way. Does removing a market currently consuming 30-50% of the crop make things better or worse for farmers?
IMO Having livestock feed as a market keeps prices up, and as this article points out they're still too low. Killing off the cattle market kills off grain farmers too. I'm not sure that's the win people think it is.
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.
The quickest way for a government to collapse is famine.
IMO it is the role of the federal government to ensure that the US is not dependent on another country to feed its people. This is probably not popular here, but its a fact.
More generally, however, it's a cost that is paid to support massive efficiency gains in other sectors. Like roads, aviation or the military. The freight system particularly would be unreliable if food prices floated according to only supply and demand, due to freights vulnerability to political upheavals, militias, etc.
Apparently, New Zealand abandoned all farm subsidies at some point and while the transition was abrupt and rough for farmers the farming sector recovered and is now performing much better. They abandoned it because they could no longer support it economically. They were producing lots of sheep that couldn't be sold. Now they produce much more meat with much less sheep.
Farming subsidies aren't unique to the US. Here in the EU, farmers are giving away subsidized potatoes in Berlin currently. You can literally go to a collection point and pick up some free potatoes. They have so much over production that farmers literally don't know what to do with it. Nobody wants them. In the same way there's a history of subsidized beetroot farming for sugar production, too much wine in France, butter and milk surpluses, etc. This happens over and over again.
In the US, the two main crops that are being subsidized are corn and soy beans. Corn syrup isn't exactly a thing that the rest of the world needs in their diets. It's a very uncommon ingredient outside the US. And commonly associated with obesity issues inside it. Soy beans are useful for export and for feeding animals. Exports are problematic (tariffs) currently and animals can also be fed with corn.
And of course much corn is also used for ethanol production, which in turn is used to greenwash fuel usage in the ICE vehicles that burn it. Bear in mind that intensive corn farming is very CO2 intensive. The extensive mono cultures in the US are destroying the landscape and contributing to desertification. It's not great the environment or global warming. It doesn't make any economic sense to be subsidizing corn production at this scale.
The problem here is that these are relatively low value crops that would not be produced in anywhere near the current volumes without subsidies. They aren't actually needed in these volumes either. Farmers mainly grow it because they get money to grow it. They would be growing more valuable things without subsidies. Or at least be diversifying what they do. The irony of this is that many farmers don't even like being that dependent on subsidies.
The whole system perpetuates but there's no solid argument for it. Everyone could arguably do better without that. But it's easier/more convenient to not change the system. So politicians keep on "protecting" the farmers (i.e. their own seats).
I looked into this story because it doesn't sound correct. It seems the potatoes were indeed sold but due to an unusually high yield this year, the trader decided not to pick them up so the farmer gave them away rather than try to find another buyer. And it was just one farm in Saxony. So this is not an EU or even a Germany wide issue.
https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-germany-potatoes-eu-agriculture...
Emphasis on "so", i.e. past obvious strategic rationale like food "security", there's reason to believe US ag has excessive subsidies. IMO answer is like every other "strategic" sector, farmland political economy has been captured by wealth (i.e. Bill Gates largest farmland owner). There's a fuckload of tax haven / loop holes tied to farmland that defers capital gains tax, estate/inheritance tax, property tax. Farmland is stable investment (because land) used to park wealth - it's an asset class, hence if held as asset, wealthy will double down / double dip to make sure it doesn't go idle, so they lobby all the "easy" crops to get massive subsidies and now something like 80% of subsidies goes to top 10% of recipients. US doesn't need to produce that much surplus corn/soy, but it's relatively easy to grow so big agri with capital sunk on those crops will lobby for continued subsidy of said crops, build up even more wasteful sectors like agri to energy (30-50% of corn goes to ethanol), and next thing you know a very inefficient ground water to subsidized agri commodity to gdp generator takes on it's own logic. TLDR, people good at at spread sheets rigged US agri like they rigged everything else.
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.
1. Keep strategic production capacity alive.
2. Spread American soft power.
3. Get warm fuzzy feelings because you prevented millions of people from dying of starvation.
The fuss made about agricultural subsidies by non-farmers is misguided. Dropping subsidies doesn't make food cheaper, it makes it go away.
Consumers are addicted to cheap food, so they pay taxes instead to make up the difference. Given a progressive tax system this actually is a very efficient approach to take. And overall, as a % of the total budget, these subsidies are insignificant.
What is hurting farmers are reduced markets. USAid used to buy up a lot of surplus production (effectively a back-door subsidy), lots got exported to China et al. Given the economic antagonism towards the US (thanks to things like tarifs and insults) demand for US food exports either dropped naturally (eg Canada) or with reciprocal tarifs (eg China).
Politicians like to say "we don't make things here anymore" ignoring the most fundamental production of all (farming). They destabilize foreign trade, and (if we look at more labor intensive crops) target farm workers for deportation.
To be fair, agriculture states are also red states, so it's fair to say they voted for this.
I know there is a rule about reading the article, but did you? This [trend] is nothing new, USAid has nothing to do with it other than short term changes.
Tariffs were one way to pry open those markets, but of course, the few agricultural products that were already selling , were affected in the retailiation . It will take some time for things to sort out.
Unfortunately though I don't think US tarifs are the solution here. Leaving aside that antagonizing the end-consumer seems unproductive (eg canada) there's also a perception in Europe that US food products (especially meat) are of low quality.
Whether that perception US true or not US immaterial. (My own visits to the US and experience of US food would suggest the US optimizes for quantity not quality, but anecdotes are not data.)
Much of the barrier with exporting beef are the higher food standards, and documentation, required in Europe. Lowering the standards doesn't seem to be politically acceptable either.
You could increase prices relatively little and farmers would earn lot more. But no one else is willing to allow that to happen. As such directly subsidizing them is more efficient.
It’s doesn’t.
Agricultural subsidies in the US, and I presume most states but I’m not as well read on their policies, are a mixture of realpolitik, war preparedness, and graft.
If you are trying to square the circle, you can’t, because economic efficiency was not an input for the decisions on these subsidies.
It is my understanding that a lot of the US ag. sector is making inputs for processing for corn oil, fructose, ethanol, and for exports to markets which in turn target american ag, selling e.g. beef back to the US, fattened on US Soy.
It's a complex web. I don't want US farmers going broke, any more than I want Australian farmers going broke (where I live)
So getting this right, fixing farming sector security, is important.
Persistent government subsidies are almost never a good idea long term. I understand that some temporary support might make sense in some cases, but not permanent one. It prevents innovation and optimization. And in the long run it usually makes more damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CraFarms
So I guess yay deregulation, now with more capitalist privatized profits with socialized costs!
I've posted pretty solid evidence that dregulation, did not, in fact improve the agricultural situation for New Zealand. It absolutely made a subset of corporations and mega-farmers extremely rich at the expense of the natural resources the rest of the country shares. Would LOVE to hear the arguments about how that's a good thing for the people of New Zealand or our planet as a whole.
But then again, that would require thoughtful discourse...
Provide any real or partial claims this isn't the whole story and it's difficult to change your mind on something that is fundamental to your beliefs. So downvote and move to the next post that validates your beliefs. Happens to everyone including me.
I rather we focus on increasing food security in other way.
Maybe we shouldn't be turning corns into cows as that reduce the amount of energy we are able to access. But how do we keep access to farmlands that we don't use now that we aren't turning corns into cows? I suppose we could just use these lands as pasture.
Why? We like beef. I don't want it to go away.
I haven't studied the economics of the biofuel farming.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/03/environm...
https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases...
We need to realign on this politically; either we use markets to allocate scarce resources or we don’t.
The answer is probably that the public does not believe in markets. But we haven’t made that explicit, and instead have the worst combinations of policies; with worse service and enabling grifters.
Somewhere off in the distance I hear billionaires laughing.
This is only important if you care about the future of humans. At least in America, attention spans have shortened, empathy has decreased, and individualism has increased. Billionaires don't care about the future beyond their own life. And unfortunately, one of the worst of them is now the head of the country.
i've been working for John Deere for 15 years - I have seen this cycle several times already. people blame various politics when it happens, but the fundamentals are enough to explain nearly all of this. Anyone in farming knows this and plans for it (not always successfully)
These numbers are huge though. I think it is fair to say that this time it may be different.
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 corporations. This ends up leading to farmers having to sell land to corporations that will then farm it and extract subsidies from the government.
When a farmer receives a subsidy, it usually just ends up in the pockets of Cargill or Monsanto, with whom they already owe money to.
The whole system is broken from top to bottom.
He was a Nixon/Reagan flunky, naturally, but the Dems ignored the issue for a long time. It was exciting to finally see the first real pushback in the last administration under Lina Khan. So many upset businessmen on TV! Unfortunately, elections have consequences, and the work did not continue.
Perhaps one of the consequences of her actually pushing back on this was one of the many reasons the owner class overwhelmingly backed Trump.
Populism is in the air, and for good reason. Lina Khan's FTC was not all they feared, but if it had been, our mistake would have been one of not going far enough.
Kill two birds with one stone.
Farmers have a lot of equity that corporates could be given in exchange for lower food prices.
Canada supplies 75-80% of US potash imports, and potash is a non-substitutable input in agriculture; without it, crop yields drop significantly. China no longer buy soybeans from US farmers, and instead now sources from South America; they have made a token 12M ton purchase, as they promised.
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/farmers-bailout-tr...
> Ragland, for example, supported Trump dating back to 2016, making him just one of many in rural America. Trump won a majority of USDA “farming-dependent” counties ahead of his first term, and within a year of assuming office, his trade wars drove American farm exports to China down from $19.5 billion to $9 billion. Ultimately, farmers saw a decline of $27 billion in agricultural exports, nearly 71 percent of that attributable to soybean profit losses. Ragland, a soybean farmer, still turned right back around and voted for Trump again in both 2020 and 2024. Here again, he was just one of many. Farmers increased their support for Trump by 5 percent in 2020, hitting 76 percent support, and then added another 2 percent in 2024, reaching 78 percent support. In 100 of the country’s 444 “farming-dependent” counties, according to Investigate Midwest, Trump won a whopping 80 percent of the vote.
> “So they voted for this guy three times—all these white farmers did. And now this president has turned agriculture in this country to the worst [shape it’s been in] since the ’80s. Farm bankruptcies. Farm foreclosures. Farm suicide [My note: farmer suicides are 3.5x-4x the general population]. Input costs—all these things,” Boyd told me.
https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/13/trump-election-far...
> Not only did Trump increase his support among farming-dependent counties, but more than 100 of those counties supported him with at least 80% of their vote.
This is entirely self inflicted, which to me, is wild and a case study for history. This was a collective choice, intentionally made.
Why do these rural states (several of which have a total population less than that of major metro areas on the coasts) have two senators?
The senate is an antidemocratic institution. The compromise that every state gets two senators made sense when we were a weak, newborn and vulnerable nation, with a total population of less than 3 million people. Not anymore. The founders likely didn't want people like Ragland to have the vote anyway. They were not salt of the earth farmers they were largely plantation and merchant and legal elites. Ragland is the dumb mob rule they feared.
Maybe the 17th amendment was a mistake. At the very least, why stop there? The constitution is not sacred, as established and as written, the founders would have given Ragland less representation.
Perhaps in the spirit of actual democracy and modern reform, it is time to revisit the idea that every state gets two senators. Given what is really going on here is these states vote against their own interests and then rob blue states to cover up the shortfall. Why are blue states tolerating it?
It would be one thing if it was just about money, but it's not. These populations are being deputized in a culture war that tells them to hate you while they take your money. They need a reality check.
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 here now.
There has (now) been a 50+ year trend of declining living conditions and real wages. People are getting loaded up with debt essentially to make wealthy people even wealthier. Everything has been getting worse.
This was the turning point of the 2016 election. Trump's talk of being an outsider (he isn't), draining the swamp (he didn't) and talking to actual voter concerns was what propelled him to the nomination. And the victory because Hilary Clinton was such a dogshit bad candidate who thought she could win running as a generic corporate Democrat. You know who else run with populist messaging? Bernie Sanders. A nontrivial number of people who voted for Bernie in the primaries voted for Trump in the general. This might confuse you if you think of this as a purely Democratic-Republican divide. It wasn't and it isn't.
So why do farmers keep voting for Trump even though he now has a record of screwing them over? Because he speaks to their interest and their problems where Democrats don't talk to them at all.
2024 was a textbook example of how to intetnionally run a campaign to lose the biggest lay up election in history. No real policies. Ordinary people do not care about tax credits for small businesses. That doesn't help anyone who is struggling to afford rent and food.
So you can say "you made your bed now lie in it" to the farmers but does that help you? Does that help the country? The Democratic Party is complicit in everything that's happened by their intentional inaction and choice to lose.
Much of the rest of this is equally ahistorical. Living conditions and wages haven't gotten worse over the past 50 years.
Obama ran on “hope” and “change” very foofy stuff. Ultimately you may be able to support your position by virtue of his saying very little at all.
Wages have in fact fallen for the majority of people in real terms.
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.
The majority of Democrats in the Senate voted in favor (29-21). In the House a much larger majority voted against (81-126) the resolution.
A total of 7 Republicans voted against the resolution. Between both chambers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
He won Iowa by 9 due to the fact that the war in Iraq was incredibly unpopular and the economy was imploding.
This is false. Trump did not spoken to their problems.
He spoken to their hate, to they wish to harm other people. He is a crook and that appealed to them - they want to steal like him.
They voted for Trump, because they like seeing abuse. That was super clear, if you actually listen to what they say.
Biden / Harris also essentially offered voters the Trolley Problem. If you don't pull the lever Trump will fund genocide. If you do pull the lever, we will also fund genocide, but maybe less genocide.
If your campaign can be described as an instance of a classic ethical dilemma, maybe the problem isn't the voters? At the very least, if Democrats 2024 campaign rhetoric is to be believed, funding genocide was more important to them than maintaining U.S. democracy.
> So you can say "you made your bed now lie in it" to the farmers but does that help you? Does that help the country?
If there are less voters like this over time, yes, I put forth that will help the country (~2M 55+ voters age out every year, ~5k per day). Whether the country is worth saving, we can save for another thread. If someone won't change their mind, nor their vote, you've arrived at an impasse. You can only wait for time to work. Again, very unfortunate.
> The Democratic Party is complicit in everything that's happened by their intentional inaction and choice to lose.
"They made me do it." is not an argument. You vote for the chainsaw, you get the chainsaw. My understanding was that conservatives held personal responsibility as a core belief. Am I mistaken? Better luck next election cycle.
I take no pleasure in discovering that this is reality. It brings me great sadness. "We must take the world as it is and not as we would like it to be." -- Maurice
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.
Do people really believe this? That there are no policy programs from Democratic candidates? Nothing on healthcare, childcare, eldercare, education, housing, energy? Just no promises at all?
I ask because that is obviously false, but it seems to be a common misapprehension. I'm wondering what candidates could do beyond talking about their policies at length (which they do) that would get people to believe that they have policies.
It's objectively true.
> That there are no policy programs from Democratic candidates?
Does increasing ICE funding count [1]?
> Nothing on healthcare, childcare, eldercare, education, housing, energy? Just no promises at all?
Literally none of those things. The Democratic Platform is "Trump bad" and to be a nicer, gentler face on fascism.
> I ask because that is obviously false
What policies do Democrats actually stand for?
This is so obviously true that you need look no farther than the NYC mayoral election. Zohran Mamdani came from nowhere to win the the Democratic primary on a fairly simple platform of universal childcare, cheaper food, faster and free buses and freezing the rent (on rent stabilized apartments). Those are all concrete policies. Less than one month into his administration and we hvave a pilot program for childcare [2].
And what was the Democratic Party response? Democratic Party leaders (eg Schumer, Jeffries, Booker) would not endorse him, despite him winning the primary. Some tepid endorsements came late. Instead the Democratic Party with a wink and a nod ran a spoiler candidate, Andrew Cuomo, who previous had to resign in disgrace from being governor after multiple allegations of sexual harassment.
Think back to what Kamala ran on. Not stopping the genocide, not even calling it a genocide (both positions of which were highly popular with the base, even more than a year ago), a tax credit for small business, having the "most lethal" (her words) military and an immigration plan that was indistinguishable from the Trump 2020 immigration plan, including building the wall that the Democrats had previously campaigned against. She mentioned "price gouging" one time. That was hugely popular because it was the one thing that went to the affordability crisis. But she never mentioned it again because Wall Street didn't like it. Nothing about healthcare or the cost of rent or education. Not a thing.
> I'm wondering what candidates could do beyond talking about their policies at length (which they do)
Who talks about affordability, housing, healthcare and inflation "at length"? There are a handful of Congresspeople who do (eg AOC) but it's not a party position and certainly none of the out 2028 presidential wannabes talk about it.
Here's a little test for you. Whenever they talk they'll usually say that someone (usually Trump) is bad. Maybe they'll say a certain situation is bad (eg high rents). Whenever a candidate or ap olitician does that, the very next thing out of their mouth should be a solution. "Yes rents are high and I'm going to tackle this by doing X, Y and Z." Every problem should be followed a solution. If you don't hear a solution, it's just empty platitudes.
But the Democratic Party doesn't do that. They don't like making promises because then they can't be held to promises they never made.
> ... that would get people to believe that they have policies.
Progressive policies are poular. Democratic pooliticians are not. One of my favorite examples of this is Missouri. Trump won the state by 19. There was a ballot initiative to increase the minimum wage, an obviously prograssive policy. It won by 15. So this progressive policy outperformed Kamala by 34 in a deep red state. Put another way, 17% of the voters who voted in 2024 in Missouri showed up to vote for Trump AND to increase minimum wage.
This isn't a messaging problem. The Kamala campaign spent over $100 million in Pennsylvania and didn't move the needle. It's a platform problem.
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/cory-booker-ice-proposal-progressiv...
[2]: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/20/...
Voters aren't immune from failure. Voters fail when they stay home and don't bother to vote at all, when they remain ignorant/uneducated, when they vote for a party/team instead of the candidate, etc.
It's tempting to let voters off the hook when candidates lie to their faces but ultimately it falls on voters to be aware of the track record of the candidates, be educated on the issues, and use a little critical thinking. I certainly can't feel too bad for them when they reelect a candidate who already screwed them over once already. Everyone knows the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me... you can't get fooled again."
Hard disagree. Voters are never at fault. It is incumbent upon the candidate to give the voters something to vote for.
> ... they stay home and don't bother to vote at all
Because they had nothing to vote for. Candidate's fault.
So what you've touched on is what's called "lesser evil voting", an idea that it is the voter's responsibility to engage in harm reduction. For too long the Democratic Party has relied on this to do nothing by just being a gentler face on fascism. Some might say you're rewarding that behavior by turning up to vote for them anyway, even when they offer you nothing. Millions stayed home in 2024 because they were offered nothing. That's the only power voters had and they exercised it. And I said at the time that the Democratic Party will learn nothing and change nothing as a result of a devastating loss in the easiest lay up of all time.
It's the voters job to vote for the person they want in the position. If you're prepared to ignore the reality of the deeply broken two party system that means writing in someone. The end result is the same as not voting, but at least it's a clearly deliberate act and can't be dismissed as or assumed to be laziness, apathy, or equal approval of either candidate.
> an idea that it is the voter's responsibility to engage in harm reduction.
If you refuse the responsibility for doing the least harmful or most beneficial thing for yourself and the country, who do you think is going to do that for you?
> For too long the Democratic Party has relied on this to do nothing by just being a gentler face on fascism.
Even if every election was strictly a choice between a fascist and a gentler fascist (and that's not remotely been the case) do you think that it doesn't make any difference which one wins? Do you think that there will no difference in the amount of death and suffering that results? Even if you were only given the choice between there being more or less death and suffering for yourself and others in your country do you really think the smartest move is to not bother to make any effort whatsoever to reduce that harm?
> Some might say you're rewarding that behavior by turning up to vote for them anyway,
I understand your frustration with the party, but you don't have to vote for them either. You can write in someone else. You can write "Fuck all of you" in capitol letters across the entire ballot. That at least would be a protest! If you don't even show up you're not saying anything except that you're fine with them doing whatever they want with you.
I mean, pardon the analogy, but if I were locked in a room with two rapists who wanted to fuck me in the ass, I like to think I'd at least make some effort to defend myself. If I couldn't or failed do that I'd hope that I'd at least voice my displeasure. I sure wouldn't silently bend over and present my asshole willingly to the meanest rapist in the room because I didn't want to "reward" the gentler one. I wouldn't just close my eyes and open up for whoever got there first. That's just giving up.
> Millions stayed home in 2024 because they were offered nothing. That's the only power voters had and they exercised it.
That wasn't an act of power, it was the opposite. The only power voters have is their vote, and everyone who stayed at home didn't even make an effort to use it. They gave up the only power they had leaving themselves powerless. If I were some evil fascist trying to rule over a population it's pretty much the best outcome I could hope for. It'd be the people giving me their permission to do anything I wanted because nobody even cares what I do. An actual vote for me in one election is a vote I could lose in the future. No vote at all would mean I'd already won.
> And I said at the time that the Democratic Party will learn nothing and change nothing as a result of a devastating loss in the easiest lay up of all time.
Which only shows how stupid the "do nothing" strategy is. Why should they change anything if no one cares about the outcome anyway? You can't make the democratic party be what you want them to be by letting the country get destroyed out of spite. Maybe you can't change them at all, but if you have any chance to do it, it'll be by voting for people in that party who most represents what you want it to be. It's either that or enough people have to vote outside of the party and we know the obstacles to that.
Democracy in the US has been a joke. It's a two party system where both options suck. There is a massive amount of voter suppression. There is open corruption and bribery by the rich and by corporations. Inaction isn't going to fix any of those problems. Voting actually could.
When Trump ran for president, nobody wanted him in power. The republicans didn't want him. They had their own preferred candidates. They didn't want him so much that they pretty much got everybody they could think of to run against him. The wealthy didn't want him either. They'd been making money hand over fist and they liked things the way they were. Trump threatened to mess with the system they'd built for themselves.
Everybody pretty much saw him as a clown. They weren't even wrong about that really, but in the end he got the votes. Maybe that wouldn't have happened if so many on the left didn't just stay home, but because it did we know that (at least back then anyway) voters in America actually had the power to change things. The ones who used that power were not the ones who stayed at home and pouted. The powerful establishment lost because people voted for something different. Something stupid, yes, but different and the result was (and has been) chaos. In my opinion Sanders should have been the left's trump. It was working too, although he was being actively undermined by the party. Today, it's candidates like Mamdani who I'm interested in watching. It doesn't matter if it has to start more locally than nationally, as long as the "fascists" getting votes get gentler and gentler.
There's a non-zero chance that America gave up the power to vote by electing a dictator. That's always been an option after all. Freedom means having enough rope to hang yourself with, but if the USA is lucky enough to still have the option to vote for who ends up in power I strongly suggest that people take it.
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 overcrowded commodity market rather than specializing in profitable but more labor intensive crops.
Not necessarily. People live where they live because there are jobs. If they don't need jobs because of UBI, or they can take lower-paying jobs, they can move wherever housing is plentiful.
These issues are why policy was oriented around individual home ownership for decades.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile our teachers are suffering enormously, our education is terrible, our roads are terrible, we are poisoning ourselves with substandard food, we have extremely expensive but relatively poor healthcare to deal with the problems that creates, we have no time off and are labor slaves where maximum effort for minimum pay is the norm, and half the country has become violently oppressive to the point of absolutely thriving off the suffering they perceive inflicted on others. And still, we know better - of course - because we are Americans.
The government spent lots of money to turn the California and Arizona deserts into the garden of America. New Jersey planted subdivisions.
People shop where they can afford to shop. Walmart is famous for not paying people enough to shop anywhere except walmart. The fix is to make sure that people earn a living wage and to actually enforce the Robinson–Patman Act and aggressively go after price fixing. Suddenly walmart's prices won't undercut the mom and pop places and they won't have to charge as much to just barely survive. Opening a store that isn't part of some massive chain would stand a chance at being profitable and affordable. More competition leads to more innovation and more opportunities.
I guess you could say this raises prices, but on the flip side, small farm prices could start to come down if they were more viable.
Maybe. The subsidies that we always hear about is a portion of insurance premiums paid by the government. Presumably if the government pulled out of the subsidy, the risk/reward of insurance would tilt towards not having it. Many farmers already forego having insurance even with the reduced price.
Which would mean nothing until something bad happens. But when something does happen, that means some big farms could collapse. But it would also mean small farms are just as likely to collapse right beside.
I expect you are ultimately right: That once the collapses occur, it would be hard to rebuild a large farm before it ends up collapsing once more, leaving farms unable to ever grow beyond being small again. But is that what you imagine for small farms?
Of course, that's all theoretical. In the real world, the government wouldn't let the food supply fall apart like that. If farms didn't have insurance, it would simply come in and bail them out when destructive events occur. It is a lot simpler, and no doubt cheaper (the subsidy is offered on the condition of being willing to give production data back in return), to implement a solution ahead of time rather than panicking later.
Who? Monsanto closed up shop and sold off its assets to Bayer and BASF many years ago.
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 price craters, and farmers need to be constantly bailed out.
Canadians watch crazy things like for example the US Federal government buying millions and millions of gallons of milk, making cheese, and storing it for decades. All to reduce supply/create demand, and keep the price artificially high. I suppose one bonus is the US government gives some of this cheese to the poor.
The other crazy part is the US federal government has repeatedly bought dairy farms out, to reduce supply. Literally bought entire farms, and closed them down.
Canada wants a stable supply of milk. We don't want to rely upon a foreign power for basic food-stuffs. And we don't want to spend untold billions. Thus, supply management.
Meanwhile, the US runs around saying we're crazy commies because we have price and supply control, says free market is perfect, then spends endless billions over decades to pretend the market works.
Oh and also, the US screams about how our market isn't "open", how we unfairly manipulate the market, then... wants to inject super cheap, underpriced milk, all of the result of US federal tax dollars spending billions.
Finally, it is illegal to use growth hormones in Canada on cattle. Not so in the US. With the excess supply issues in dairy in the US, maybe the US should do the same?
https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2024/04/...
https://ppaq.ca/en/sale-purchase-maple-syrup/worlds-only-res...
Do you have references to bailouts specifically for dairy farms? The big bailouts recently were due to reciprocal tariffs. There is the Milk Loss Program but that is limited to 30 days of production per year. I would also classify this more of an insurance program than bailout.
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.
Why, then, only dairy, poultry, eggs, and — at least until 2007 when the government bought back the quota — tobacco production? If the farmers growing the foods that are actually deemed important in a healthy diet end up bankrupt, no big deal?
> It also ensures the market price is fair to farmers.
Well, it creates a two-tier system where the 'blessed' farmers who are born into it (or born into a European farm that can be sold at a high enough price to buy a farmer in Canada out) have artificially high incomes to spend on land, equipment, etc. at inflated prices. It is hard to think that is fair to all the other farmers who have to compete against the farmers of the world when selling their product but have to pay supply managed farmer prices for inputs.
I suppose everything is in the eye of the beholder. I'll grant you that all the other farmers' retirement plan is to sell off their land to a supply managed farmer who will pay way more than it is worth. That keeps the peace. Bit sad to see everything go to those producers who get special treatment, though.
At the end of the day, consumers get stable and somewhat realistic prices and supply, while farmers also get stable income.
Which? You can't have both. Input costs are subject to the whims of non-supply managed markets. When, say, input costs rise either the farmer has to absorb that cost (unstable income), or the cost has to be passed on to the customer (unstable consumer price).
> and supply
Oh? https://www.ctvnews.ca/atlantic/article/some-maritime-grocer..., https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/cana..., https://farmersforum.com/cracks-in-supply-management/
> Which? You can't have both
Maybe not in USA. Looks like another problem that only one developed country says is impossible to solve.
Food prices are mostly stable (relatively speaking)
I'm not sure if you realise this, but the exact same thing happens in the US.
This is a result of subsidies distorting market prices and encouraging malinvestment.
Not every topic needs to discuss every tangent problem.
My point is this exactly mirrors the situation in health insurance, university degree prices, and many other industries we permanent subsidize. Companies create machines to use people to access the nearly unlimited pool of money available.
or only a new set of bankruptcies and the same farmers stay on?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xon9A5_4tQw&pp=ygUKZmFybSB0YWJ... was very illuminating
Small family farms, while romanticized, have all the problems of any small business competing with larger professionalized businesses; consistency in operations, consistency in output quality, access to resources - including people and machines.
Additionally, for their own operational simplicity big buyers prefer interacting with as few suppliers as possible - so, market forces have been driving consolidation for decades.
90% likely what would happen is an adjacent farmer would buy the land. You want all your land to be near each other, like defragementing a hard drive ;)
With a low tax on land, we may not actually be encouraging the most efficient use of farmlands.
Given that people are loathed to sell their land for any reason, this makes it impossible for farmers to start new farm, leading to a gradual depopulation and collapse of rural economies.
The current Republican Party blatantly preys on this weakness and gives people an enemy to hate so they can keep fleecing them.
This is different than the Democrats, who can’t get their shit together and have a common goal.
"These loss estimates reflect national averages; actual costs of production and returns vary by region, management decisions and ownership structure. For example, producers who own their farmland may face lower total costs by avoiding cash rental expenses, resulting in higher returns."
So, can we trust this to say what it appears to be saying? Or might it be meaningless like many broad averages, and we should use more specific data that includes supplier behaviors?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenroberts/2026/01/17/china-pur...
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-farmers-voted-trump-feeling-210...
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.
Seriously, do you think this works? Do you think urban people living in poverty vote against their interests as well?
The party really abandoned rural voters and farmers. Money in politics didn’t just affect Republicans — the democrats abandoned the traditional party structures and followed the money. There’s no more democratic picnics, etc.
I’m not defending the GOP. They’ve embraced evil imo. But people followed their message because nobody else is talking to them.
Not to defend the Dem party (only the lesser of two evils, at least lately), but in what way? Because farm subsidies seem fairly consistent regardless of which party was in power[0]
[0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-...
Something that's been made very clear over the last few election cycles is that a lot of voters will go against their own interests, as long as it hurts their perceived "enemy" more than themselves.
Just an anecdote, but IMO progressive liberals are some of the most racist people I've encountered.
I have family members who didn't like Obama at all, not one of them would ever comment on color, it was his policies.
Nobody votes against their own interests. That is something that only stupid caricatures do, not actual people. If it seems that way to you, that should be a very strong signal to reevaluate your understanding of the situation. Most likely, that means either nobody is representing their interests or you have misunderstood what their interests are.
There is only one comment above that says that both rural and urban people do the same thing, it is all boiling down to everyone should be voting one party.
We'd really be better off if we had zero trade with them. They're poison.
Most independent farmers live in remote areas, far from money printers; they exist in a scarce monetary environment. It's hard to compete when your big corporate competitors exist in an environment where money is more abundant.
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...
What is your solution then? Explain how that happens/migrates to, in the US?
When i want real quality food for a good price in my own country, i have to go to another country to actually get it.
Again, i can't condemn them for trying to make more profit, but somewhere in the line it gets pretty weird and annoying.