$7 corn several years ago, was the worst thing to happen to us. There used to be a status quo where the fertilizer, seed, and equipment companies were satisfied with how much they made off us. Now everything has changed, the fertilizer manufacturers are a monopoly, coops don't operate like coops anymore, price manipulation with the board of trade, high property taxes, chemical companies feathering their pockets by pushing corn varieties that companion a chemical that may or may not work to control the weeds. There are very few independent Ag businesses anymore, just multi locations that tell you what expensive product, or piece of equipment that you have to have to be successful.The deck is stacked against us, and no one cares. Suicide among farmers is 7 times that of any other group. How can I formulate a plan that shows the banker I can make a profit, when I cant get a spring price on anhydrous ammonia, and 32% fertilizer is 1/3 higher than this time last year, with lower commodity prices. Now we will have a higher blend of ethanol, but with thin margins, some ethanol plants in Nebraska may be shutting down. How is it that the anthem kneeling NFL gets subsidies, yet the hard working American farmer is left out in the cold. I don't know anyone in my neck of the woods in central Nebraska, that made any money this year. Our representatives are all hot air, we call and write them, and all we get is form letters. I'm thinking we need less big business, less miracle chemicals and less expensive seed, and get back to the basics. You can get the latest non GMO seed from onlineseedsales, for around $120 a bag. Basic herbicides, and a little cultivation, and your good to go. Less commercial fertilize, and use old fashioned manure with cover crops and you have nitrogen and organic matter, with some weed control. Its truly sad that a farmer with a great work ethic isn't enough anymore. Wife working, trucking on the side, a side business, selling extra equipment just to barely keep your nose above water isn't right! How many bad years can we endure? That's right we don't need farmers, we have grocery stores!!
Except that all wasn't caused by $7 corn, it was caused by $2 corn. We need a farm bill with fair prices, where farmers are no longer forced to subsidize the loss of their value-added livestock to CAFOs, (via below cost grain prices,) to then lose sustainable livestock diversity: pastures, hay, oats. When we had that diversity, farmers could greatly reduce input costs via diverse crop rotations. If grain prices were too low for a while, farmers could hold back more livestock for a while, and make money that way instead. Farmers lost these 2 options, 2 "freedoms to farm," due to cheap farm prices (1. diverse rotations vs. input costs, 2. value added livestock vs. cheap grain).
I found this video to be VERY biased against the farmers. I have a suggestion for a video for YOU to view..."MONSANTO: THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY." A century ago, there were LAWS against MONOPOLIES...and there were Anti-Trust suits against "Big Oil" companies. The government today is in BED with Monsanto...GMO's...no product labeling....no oversight. Don't blame it all on the farmers. Blame the USDA.
Food is cheap, she says, yes, because it's subsidized by farmers. People can't afford the cheap food. Yes, wages are far too low, (soon minimum wage will be less than $5.00 in 2009 dollars, when it was $7.25). Since farm prices chronically fail to balance out by an "invisible hand," and on both supply (farmer) and demand (consumer) sides, farm prices are chronically low, so we need a farm bill to manage farm markets,(all big industry companies manage their markets,) and give farmers a fair price. We had a great farm bill in earlier years, 1942-1952, when the giant agribusiness companies, (seven sisters of grain, etc.) had to pay farmers more than $1 trillion more. Congress reversed that, to secretly force farmers to subsidize the giants, including CAFOs. In being forced to subsidize the loss of their value added livestock to CAFOs, (where CAFOs can buy feed ingredients cheaper than farmers can grow them,) farmers lost the sustainable livestock diversity of grass, hay, and nurse crops like oats. Mere anti-trust measures can't fix that, though they do help the few remaining family farm livestock producers.
It should be pointed out that cheap food is subsidized by farmers, (below full costs and/or below fair price levels) so it's an injustice against farmers. Second, the biggest part of the farm bill, historically and ideally, isn't the $100 billin per year, but rather is nonspending market management, (minimum farm price floors, similar to minimum wage, which is not a government check). Third, it wasn't designed merely for the Great Depression, but rather for chronic market failure on both supply (farmer) and demand (consumer) sides, which was seen for 60 years prior to the Depression, and ever since. Fourth, the main mechanisms don't involve paying farmers not to grow too much, but rather requiring farmers not to do it, and not buying up excess crops, but rather setting minimum price floors and cutting back on supply from year to year. Adequate Reserve supply needs aren't enough to fix oversupply, as it's chronic. Reserves and Price Ceilings are primarily to protect consumers.
@@commonsenseapproach101 But you don't have any valid evidence for that opinion, and the facts show otherwise. See. the evidence on my Farm Bill & Food Bill playlist, and on my slide shows at Slideshare, such as "Democratic Party Farm Bills." The subsidy money is irrational, unless you want US agriculture to subsidize foreigners with below cost exports, which is what the agribusiness lobby has influenced congress to do. In that case, farmers deserve compensation for subsidizing domestic and foreign buyers. All farms have these reductions prior to getting subsidies, but the huge agribusiness buyers have huge profits and no reductions prior to getting their much larger subsidies, from farmers. Behind all of this is that farm crop prices chronically fail to balance out with an "invisible hand," so supply management for profits is needed. But farms are too small to do that by themselves, (like all giant industry companies do,) so they need supply management and minimum farm price floors, (no subsidies needed). The farms receiving the biggest subsidies, those in the top 10%, are mostly full-time family-sized farms, or similar but smaller, (i.e. 200 acres corn & soybeans,) or similar but somewhat larger. The bigger the farm, the bigger the prior reduction, as I show with data. Who are your sources?
@FireweedFarm actually theircwas all the evidence you needed in the ecw data base until the last farm bill removed that data base. Plus their is a 275k tax write farmers get. That's in law as well. So their are your facts. I'm part of a group that helps write language in the farm bill. So don't pretend you know facts and i don't.
@@commonsenseapproach101 Thank you for discussing this. What's ecw? You don't mean Environmental Working Group? Of course you know facts, I was just making generalizations, and generalizations are useful for everyone at times, such as in short comments, but also problematic, it's just the nature of generalizations. So here's more. Here, last I checked, they don't allow links, so, unlike twitter, for example, (I'm (at) FarmJustice,) I can't link to data, though I can mention my playlists and videos by name. There's plenty of data out there, but it takes some work to put it into adequate story form. So, yes, facts, there are a lot of farm subsidies, and they can be seen for individual farms, by those getting a lot and getting little, (i.e. top 10%,) by state, by crop. But none of that data is valid, by itself, to draw conclusions about final results, and whether or not the farm bill and other factors "incentivized" or "penalized" this or that recipient category. You need to also look at the impacts of chronic "free," market failure, (which is why we have a farm bill in the first place, see "Are the five oft-cited reasons for farm programs actually symptoms of a more basic reason?"). And the massive reduction and elimination of the much bigger parts of the farm bill, (market management, which is not spending,) that hardly anyone seems to know ever existed these days. You can't know that certain inner city areas that are the biggest recipients of food subsidies, SNAP, are big farm bill "winners," unless you also know about the impacts of low minimum wages, systemic racism, and other factors. Then we see that big subsidies correlate with losing out, with penalization, not incentivization. Same with farmers. And the economic data shows that the most subsidized farm categories have been hurt, more and more, and more than other categories, such as fruits and vegetables, though all have gone down hill.
@@commonsenseapproach101 So yes, the farm bill "exacerbates" many problems, as is stated in, for example, the "2023 Farm Bill: Principles for Common Sense Reform," which comes from a number of groups. But it comes from the penalization of farmers, (where huge market reductions + compensatory subsidies = huge net reductions, with corn and Iowa as the biggest loser, and where bigger farms have bigger net reductions. What's not considered is how these huge farm market reductions, (which are not caused by subsidies,) subsidizes the agribusiness buyers, including CAFOs, leading, for example, to the massive loss of pastures and hay on farms, (much needed one hills and near streams). So these losses are from (net) penalization, not (net) subsidization, as is easily seen when the full data is seen, (which it almost never is). There's no transparency for those huge "farmer paid" "subsidies" to enormous, highly profitable recipients, (and the recipients have no prior reductions, like farmers do). So I support systemic reform proposals, (NFFC, NFU, TxFU, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, "Farm Policy Reform Act," "Family Farm Act of 1987,") which eliminate the need for any subsidies. Historical subsidies and subsidy reform proposals are both irrational, even if they're green, in that they preserve the maximum subsidization of CAFOs/agbiz, (they allow the maximum of market failure,) at the same time, (which is highly contradictory). All big industry companies do supply management, but farmers are tiny by comparison, and need a farm bill to do that, which it doesn't do any more, (except in radically reduced ways for sugar). I think the top 4 of the (hidden) agbiz buyer recipients have high returns on equity, and 60% market share. The top 4 soybean farmers have only about one half of one tenth of one percent market share. Similar for corn.
$7 corn several years ago, was the worst thing to happen to us. There used to be a status quo where the fertilizer, seed, and equipment companies were satisfied with how much they made off us. Now everything has changed, the fertilizer manufacturers are a monopoly, coops don't operate like coops anymore, price manipulation with the board of trade, high property taxes, chemical companies feathering their pockets by pushing corn varieties that companion a chemical that may or may not work to control the weeds. There are very few independent Ag businesses anymore, just multi locations that tell you what expensive product, or piece of equipment that you have to have to be successful.The deck is stacked against us, and no one cares. Suicide among farmers is 7 times that of any other group. How can I formulate a plan that shows the banker I can make a profit, when I cant get a spring price on anhydrous ammonia, and 32% fertilizer is 1/3 higher than this time last year, with lower commodity prices. Now we will have a higher blend of ethanol, but with thin margins, some ethanol plants in Nebraska may be shutting down. How is it that the anthem kneeling NFL gets subsidies, yet the hard working American farmer is left out in the cold. I don't know anyone in my neck of the woods in central Nebraska, that made any money this year. Our representatives are all hot air, we call and write them, and all we get is form letters. I'm thinking we need less big business, less miracle chemicals and less expensive seed, and get back to the basics. You can get the latest non GMO seed from onlineseedsales, for around $120 a bag. Basic herbicides, and a little cultivation, and your good to go. Less commercial fertilize, and use old fashioned manure with cover crops and you have nitrogen and organic matter, with some weed control. Its truly sad that a farmer with a great work ethic isn't enough anymore. Wife working, trucking on the side, a side business, selling extra equipment just to barely keep your nose above water isn't right! How many bad years can we endure? That's right we don't need farmers, we have grocery stores!!
Man this is a powerful testimony
Except that all wasn't caused by $7 corn, it was caused by $2 corn. We need a farm bill with fair prices, where farmers are no longer forced to subsidize the loss of their value-added livestock to CAFOs, (via below cost grain prices,) to then lose sustainable livestock diversity: pastures, hay, oats. When we had that diversity, farmers could greatly reduce input costs via diverse crop rotations. If grain prices were too low for a while, farmers could hold back more livestock for a while, and make money that way instead. Farmers lost these 2 options, 2 "freedoms to farm," due to cheap farm prices (1. diverse rotations vs. input costs, 2. value added livestock vs. cheap grain).
I found this video to be VERY biased against the farmers. I have a suggestion for a video for YOU to view..."MONSANTO: THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY." A century ago, there were LAWS against MONOPOLIES...and there were Anti-Trust suits against "Big Oil" companies. The government today is in BED with Monsanto...GMO's...no product labeling....no oversight. Don't blame it all on the farmers. Blame the USDA.
Food is cheap, she says, yes, because it's subsidized by farmers. People can't afford the cheap food. Yes, wages are far too low, (soon minimum wage will be less than $5.00 in 2009 dollars, when it was $7.25). Since farm prices chronically fail to balance out by an "invisible hand," and on both supply (farmer) and demand (consumer) sides, farm prices are chronically low, so we need a farm bill to manage farm markets,(all big industry companies manage their markets,) and give farmers a fair price. We had a great farm bill in earlier years, 1942-1952, when the giant agribusiness companies, (seven sisters of grain, etc.) had to pay farmers more than $1 trillion more. Congress reversed that, to secretly force farmers to subsidize the giants, including CAFOs. In being forced to subsidize the loss of their value added livestock to CAFOs, (where CAFOs can buy feed ingredients cheaper than farmers can grow them,) farmers lost the sustainable livestock diversity of grass, hay, and nurse crops like oats. Mere anti-trust measures can't fix that, though they do help the few remaining family farm livestock producers.
It should be pointed out that cheap food is subsidized by farmers, (below full costs and/or below fair price levels) so it's an injustice against farmers. Second, the biggest part of the farm bill, historically and ideally, isn't the $100 billin per year, but rather is nonspending market management, (minimum farm price floors, similar to minimum wage, which is not a government check). Third, it wasn't designed merely for the Great Depression, but rather for chronic market failure on both supply (farmer) and demand (consumer) sides, which was seen for 60 years prior to the Depression, and ever since. Fourth, the main mechanisms don't involve paying farmers not to grow too much, but rather requiring farmers not to do it, and not buying up excess crops, but rather setting minimum price floors and cutting back on supply from year to year. Adequate Reserve supply needs aren't enough to fix oversupply, as it's chronic. Reserves and Price Ceilings are primarily to protect consumers.
Ummm, the current farm bill is a HUGE tax payer give away to big farms.
@@commonsenseapproach101 But you don't have any valid evidence for that opinion, and the facts show otherwise. See. the evidence on my Farm Bill & Food Bill playlist, and on my slide shows at Slideshare, such as "Democratic Party Farm Bills." The subsidy money is irrational, unless you want US agriculture to subsidize foreigners with below cost exports, which is what the agribusiness lobby has influenced congress to do. In that case, farmers deserve compensation for subsidizing domestic and foreign buyers. All farms have these reductions prior to getting subsidies, but the huge agribusiness buyers have huge profits and no reductions prior to getting their much larger subsidies, from farmers. Behind all of this is that farm crop prices chronically fail to balance out with an "invisible hand," so supply management for profits is needed. But farms are too small to do that by themselves, (like all giant industry companies do,) so they need supply management and minimum farm price floors, (no subsidies needed). The farms receiving the biggest subsidies, those in the top 10%, are mostly full-time family-sized farms, or similar but smaller, (i.e. 200 acres corn & soybeans,) or similar but somewhat larger. The bigger the farm, the bigger the prior reduction, as I show with data. Who are your sources?
@FireweedFarm actually theircwas all the evidence you needed in the ecw data base until the last farm bill removed that data base. Plus their is a 275k tax write farmers get. That's in law as well. So their are your facts. I'm part of a group that helps write language in the farm bill. So don't pretend you know facts and i don't.
@@commonsenseapproach101 Thank you for discussing this. What's ecw? You don't mean Environmental Working Group? Of course you know facts, I was just making generalizations, and generalizations are useful for everyone at times, such as in short comments, but also problematic, it's just the nature of generalizations. So here's more. Here, last I checked, they don't allow links, so, unlike twitter, for example, (I'm (at) FarmJustice,) I can't link to data, though I can mention my playlists and videos by name. There's plenty of data out there, but it takes some work to put it into adequate story form. So, yes, facts, there are a lot of farm subsidies, and they can be seen for individual farms, by those getting a lot and getting little, (i.e. top 10%,) by state, by crop. But none of that data is valid, by itself, to draw conclusions about final results, and whether or not the farm bill and other factors "incentivized" or "penalized" this or that recipient category. You need to also look at the impacts of chronic "free," market failure, (which is why we have a farm bill in the first place, see "Are the five oft-cited reasons for farm programs
actually symptoms of a more basic reason?"). And the massive reduction and elimination of the much bigger parts of the farm bill, (market management, which is not spending,) that hardly anyone seems to know ever existed these days. You can't know that certain inner city areas that are the biggest recipients of food subsidies, SNAP, are big farm bill "winners," unless you also know about the impacts of low minimum wages, systemic racism, and other factors. Then we see that big subsidies correlate with losing out, with penalization, not incentivization. Same with farmers. And the economic data shows that the most subsidized farm categories have been hurt, more and more, and more than other categories, such as fruits and vegetables, though all have gone down hill.
@@commonsenseapproach101 So yes, the farm bill "exacerbates" many problems, as is stated in, for example, the "2023 Farm Bill: Principles for Common Sense Reform," which comes from a number of groups. But it comes from the penalization of farmers, (where huge market reductions + compensatory subsidies = huge net reductions, with corn and Iowa as the biggest loser, and where bigger farms have bigger net reductions. What's not considered is how these huge farm market reductions, (which are not caused by subsidies,) subsidizes the agribusiness buyers, including CAFOs, leading, for example, to the massive loss of pastures and hay on farms, (much needed one hills and near streams). So these losses are from (net) penalization, not (net) subsidization, as is easily seen when the full data is seen, (which it almost never is). There's no transparency for those huge "farmer paid" "subsidies" to enormous, highly profitable recipients, (and the recipients have no prior reductions, like farmers do). So I support systemic reform proposals, (NFFC, NFU, TxFU, Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, "Farm Policy Reform Act," "Family Farm Act of 1987,") which eliminate the need for any subsidies. Historical subsidies and subsidy reform proposals are both irrational, even if they're green, in that they preserve the maximum subsidization of CAFOs/agbiz, (they allow the maximum of market failure,) at the same time, (which is highly contradictory). All big industry companies do supply management, but farmers are tiny by comparison, and need a farm bill to do that, which it doesn't do any more, (except in radically reduced ways for sugar). I think the top 4 of the (hidden) agbiz buyer recipients have high returns on equity, and 60% market share. The top 4 soybean farmers have only about one half of one tenth of one percent market share. Similar for corn.
🌿 💚
why does it say "8 comments" when there are only 2 comments? (3, counting the replys)
Because the rest is spam
@@Interesting-kr8hb KAI TAI
HUMDOOOOOOOOOOOOO
^
anybody else watching this because of a college assignment?
Do you like to eat? Then it matters.
!
Why do we give money to promote crappy foods