Big Ag Squeezes Iowa Small Farmers Out of Business

[Swordsmyth]

While owners of small farms are experiencing an economic crisis similar to that seen in the 1980s, the Chamber of Commerce and the Koch Brothers network — two organizations largely responsible for the current state of affairs — are attempting to blame the sad state of affairs on President Trumps effort to fix bad trade deals with China. Iowa’s farming industry is booming for massive conglomerates while the small farmers are taking a pounding like never before. A recent Axios report (https://www.axios.com/iowa-country-of-monopolies-7de113b7-2860-4fa2-83ea-32c5b6766c15.html?fbclid=IwAR1-eRlie64lGZBBhAxE5br6Lk_kG40bJp3i4zk5mxnALPP72UkA5m Vzhjc) highlighted the many bankruptcies that have come as a result of the rising dominance of Big Agriculture.
“We are going down the same road as the Russians with the collective farm system,” said Chris Petersen, a third-generation pig farmer who was forced into bankruptcy, to Axios. “There, the government controlled it. Here, it’s the corporations.”
Hyper-concentration has taken over the agricultural industry, as Big Ag snuffs out all small competition standing in its way. According to the federal Department of Agriculture (https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/april/mergers-and-competition-in-seed-and-agricultural-chemical-markets/), four firms are responsible for 66 percent of hogs slaughtered, 85 percent of steer slaughtered, and half the chickens slaughtered as of 2015. Four monopoly firms also control 85 percent of corn seed sales, a 25 percent increase from 2000, and 75 percent of soy bean seed, up from 50 percent in 2000.
The result of corporate dominance is the destruction of communities, as out-of-work farmers slip into opiate addiction or are forced to move because of the corporate-fueled unemployment.


“A lot of towns are ghost towns because the farmers are gone. Schools are consolidating. My high school graduated 86 kids in 1974. It was 50 last year,” said Joe Peiffer, a Hiawatha bankruptcy lawyer, to Axios.
The US Chamber of Commerce, one of the most influential lobbying outfits in the entire country, has paid lip service to the free market for many years. The organization has become synonymous (https://www.citizen.org/sites/default/files/chamber-partisanship-report.pdf) with Republican politics supposedly standing for conservative values. They like to honor farm families (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chamber+of+commerce+farm+fami lies) with trite ceremonies that are good for propaganda videos, but the agenda driving the group is far different than what they want to portray to the public.
The Chamber has a long-standing record of standing for corporate control over the economy. A great example of this is their relationship with Monsanto, one of the primary benefactors of current trends in the agricultural industry. The Chamber pushed to shield Monsanto from liability (https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/us-chamber-calls-environmentalists-monsanto-suit-blatant-anti-business-lawsuit-abuse) after a lawsuit accused them of causing environmental damage with their genetically modified crops and pesticides. The Chamber regularly gives awards (https://www.stltoday.com/pr/business/monsanto-recognized-as-aacc-champion-of-diversity-inclusion/article_c4bfcc08-441e-11e8-b979-13410c529e80.html) to Monsanto to help their corporate public relations efforts as they fend off a battery of scandals (https://www.corp-research.org/monsanto).
“The AACC applauds Monsanto’s inclusion of the Asian community as one of its nine business resource groups while also being one of the major importers of Asian talent to the St. Louis area for decades,” said Al Li, President of the Asian American Chamber of Commerce of St. Louis, in honoring Monsanto for its commitment to diversity and globalism.

Other awards and honors given to Monsanto by the Chamber include the ‘Champion of Enterprise’ award (https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2010/11/19/monsanto-named-champion-of-enterprise.html) from the Missouri Chamber, a keynote speaking slot (https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2010/11/19/monsanto-named-champion-of-enterprise.html) awarded by the Hispanic Chamber, the Best of the Best Corporation for Inclusion award (https://nglcc.org/press-release/botb18) from the National LGBT Chamber, and even the Ceiba Award (https://monsanto.pr/portfolio/monsanto-receives-ceiba-award-from-the-southern-chamber-of-commerce/) from the Southern Puerto Rico Chamber.
“Agriculture is a complex and highly competitive industry, and there are hundreds of companies driving innovation and competing for farmers’ business. After a robust global regulatory review process, we brought together two talented teams and a robust portfolio to offer more choices for farmers. Working with our customers and partners around the world, we are focused on developing smarter ways to grow healthy crops that are more environmentally and economically sustainable,” Monsanto said to Axios.
The Chamber and other corporate lobbying outfits will continue to be in Monsanto’s corner as they march toward absolute domination of the US marketplace.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/chamber-of-commerce-gets-its-wish-big-ag-squeezes-iowa-small-farmers-out-of-business/

[donnay]

Buy Local! Join a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)! I just signed up for my CSA. We all have to do our part in helping local farmers and ranchers.

Here is a great website to start: https://www.localharvest.org

[Warlord]

Donnay, what products can you get from your local CSA?

[donnay]

Donnay, what products can you get from your local CSA?

It depends really where you are located. However, you can talked to them--for instance, my farm will give us a questionnaire (in the beginning) and ask us what we would like for them to grow, or would like more of. Below is a photo of my summer share (half share) for one week. My CSA has a Spring, Summer and Fall share, you can pick one or get all 3 shares. They have halves and whole shares too.

https://i2.wp.com/www.theherbsofthefield.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CSA.jpg?resize=750%2C500&ssl=1
https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/2018/08/08/it-is-great-to-be-a-member-of-a-community-supported-agriculture/

[r3volution 3.0]

The woes of Iowa's farmers can't have anything to do with the retaliatory tariffs that Trump provoked through his dealerific dealing, can it?

[Brian4Liberty]

The woes of Iowa's farmers can't have anything to do with the retaliatory tariffs that Trump provoked through his dealerific dealing, can it?

You never know. Are small farmers involved in exporting? Who are their customers, as opposed to the big corporate farms?

[r3volution 3.0]

You never know. Are small farmers involved in exporting? Who are their customers, as opposed to the big corporate farms?

This affects all farmers, even those who only sell domestically.

Every unit of wheat not being sold to China is now being sold (at a lower price) in the US.

[Swordsmyth]

The woes of Iowa's farmers can't have anything to do with the retaliatory tariffs that Trump provoked through his dealerific dealing, can it?
Farm prices are not significantly affected by the tariffs.

[r3volution 3.0]

Farm prices are not significantly affected by the tariffs.

Ah...

Are they affected at all?

[Swordsmyth]

Ah...

Are they affected at all?
It's hard to tell, they compare to typical prices in other years.

In any case the tariffs are necessary to preserve our liberty and independence.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's hard to tell, they compare to typical prices in other years.

In any case the tariffs are necessary to preserve our liberty and independence.

Question: If farmer Joe was planning to sell some wheat to eater Chang, but now can't, because Chang doesn't want it, because (thanks to the retaliatory tariffs) Chang can buy more cheaply from farmer Hirohito, at what price will farmer Joe sell now be able to sell that unit of wheat? Answer: at a lower price (he wouldn't have been planning to sell to Chang in the first place unless Chang were the highest bidder).

[Swordsmyth]

Question: If farmer Joe was planning to sell some wheat to eater Chang, but now can't, because Chang doesn't want it, because (thanks to the retaliatory tariffs) Chang can buy more cheaply from farmer Hirohito, at what price will farmer Joe sell now be able to sell that unit of wheat? Answer: at a lower price (he wouldn't have been planning to sell to Chang in the first place unless Chang were the highest bidder).
Or he will just sell to the person Hirohito would have sold to and the price won't be affected at all.

[Stratovarious]

The woes of Iowa's farmers can't have anything to do with the retaliatory tariffs that Trump provoked through his dealerific dealing, can it?
My guess , and I'm just guessing would be no for the short answer , and hell no for the longer.

The small Iowa Farmer isn't shipping his product to Mexico or abroad, at least not directly,
but if their products are all brokered, it could be a different story.

[r3volution 3.0]

Or he will just sell to the person Hirohito would have sold to and the price won't be affected at all.

He'll sell to that person at a lower price than he would have sold to Chang, otherwise he would have sold to that person in the first place.


Question: If farmer Joe was planning to sell some wheat to eater Chang, but now can't, because Chang doesn't want it, because (thanks to the retaliatory tariffs) Chang can buy more cheaply from farmer Hirohito, at what price will farmer Joe sell now be able to sell that unit of wheat? Answer: at a lower price (he wouldn't have been planning to sell to Chang in the first place unless Chang were the highest bidder).

[acptulsa]

This isn't exactly news. It has been going on since the 1930s.


My guess , and I'm just guessing would be no for the short answer , and hell no for the longer.

The small Iowa Farmer isn't shipping his product to Mexico or abroad, at least not directly,
but if their products are all brokered, it could be a different story.

Um, dude. If it weren't for the Breadbasket of the World, Asia would have starved decades ago.

Do you get supply and demand at all? Suppose family farmers don't sell abroad? It's a damned stupid assumption. All farmers sell to silos, and silos sell to everyone. But let's play pretend and assume they only sell domestically.

If Monsanto and ADM and their ilk don't sell abroad, then they dump their supply on the domestic demand. Suddenly Sara Lee and Orowheat are swimming in grain, and they will pay less.

Supply and demand. It's a law even the most statist state can't disobey.

[Swordsmyth]

He'll sell to that person at a lower price than he would have sold to Chang, otherwise he would have sold to that person in the first place.
Not if the reason he didn't sell to that person was because that person bought his food from Hirohito.
There is still just as much demand in the market and just as much supply.

[acptulsa]

Not if the reason he didn't sell to that person was because that person bought his food from Hirohito.
There is still just as much demand in the market and just as much supply.

Is there?

When oil imports get tight, that price goes up. Then fracking increases, because it's suddenly cost effective. What happens to the supply then?

[Swordsmyth]

Is there?

When oil imports get tight, that price goes up. Then fracking increases, because it's suddenly cost effective. What happens to the supply then?
Are the buyers of the food paying any more than they would have before? No, they are buying from sources that don't come under the retaliatory tariffs.
Are they eating any less? No.

There is just as much demand left in the world for food as there ever was and there is only as much supply as there ever was.

The fact that we sell China more food than anything else and they sell us other things mostly is one of our biggest advantages in fighting back in the trade wars being waged against us.

[acptulsa]

Are the buyers of the food paying any more than they would have before?

Did we lose track of the conversation? We were discussing whether farmers were getting less, not more.


There is just as much demand left in the world for food as there ever was and there is only as much supply as there ever was.

Can you prove that? People pay shipping charges for American grain because American farmers are so efficient. When American grain goes off major markets, or the price goes up, suddenly inefficient farmers can and do compete. They spend their summers farming inefficiently instead of finding other ways to make ends meet.

Did my fracking example go smooth over your head? Or were you in too big a hurry to spam and spin to let it sink in?

[Stratovarious]

This isn't exactly news. It has been going on since the 1930s.



Um, dude. If it weren't for the Breadbasket of the World, Asia would have starved decades ago.

Do you get supply and demand at all? Suppose family farmers don't sell abroad? It's a damned stupid assumption. All farmers sell to silos, and silos sell to everyone. But let's play pretend and assume they only sell domestically.

If Monsanto and ADM and their ilk don't sell abroad, then they dump their supply on the domestic demand. Suddenly Sara Lee and Orowheat are swimming in grain, and they will pay less.

Supply and demand. It's a law even the most statist state can't disobey.

lmao

Stir up sht wherever you go, we had a great , civil talk here until you showed up.

Bonus:
You are talking out of your ash as usual, I lived on a farm for 10 years, but yea , you tell me, us
I know better ..........:frog:

[Stratovarious]

Is there?

When oil imports get tight, that price goes up. Then fracking increases, because it's suddenly cost effective. What happens to the supply then?

:facepalm:

[Swordsmyth]

Did we lose track of the conversation? We were discussing whether farmers were getting less, not more.
If people are not paying more then the demand will be just as large.




Can you prove that? People pay shipping charges for American grain because American farmers are so efficient. When American grain goes off major markets, or the price goes up, suddenly inefficient farmers can and do compete. They spend their summers farming inefficiently instead of finding other ways to make ends meet.
America is not the only source of food on the planet, the Chinese just buy from some of the other people who are already producing and American farmers can sell to the people who would have bought from those other sources.

If enough of the world tariffed our food then demand for our food might drop but that is not the case.

[acptulsa]

lmao

Stir up sht wherever you go, we had a great , civil talk here until you showed up.

Bonus:
You are talking out of your ash as usual, I lived on a farm for 10 years, but yea , you tell me, us
I know better ..........:frog:

Oh? Do tell. You never sold grain to the local elevator?

I think what you're trying to say is you had a nice, civil echo chamber. It was still long on spin and short on facts.


If people are not paying more then the demand will be just as large.




America is not the only source of food on the planet, the Chinese just buy from some of the other people who are already producing and American farmers can sell to the people who would have bought from those other sources.

If enough of the world tariffed our food then demand for our food might drop but that is not the case.

Got data to back that up? China is a big market, and the U.S. is a big producer. A total boycott of American grain by China will clearly impact the market for U.S. produce and encourage less efficient farmers worldwide to pay a pretty penny for labor, supplies and other incidentals.

[Swordsmyth]

Got data to back that up? China is a big market, and the U.S. is a big producer. A total boycott of American grain by China will clearly impact the market for U.S. produce and encourage less efficient farmers worldwide to pay a pretty penny for labor, supplies and other incidentals.
Have you got data to back up your position?
China is not the majority source of food demand.

[acptulsa]

Have you got data to back up your position?
China is not the majority source of food demand.

It isn't? Name the nation with more mouths to feed.

I dare you.

[Swordsmyth]

It isn't? Name the nation with more mouths to feed.

I dare you.
That doesn't make it the majority source of food demand, plurality maybe.
India has almost as many mouths to feed and the African countries have quite a few as well.

And it isn't just raw population that matters, it is the ratio between population and domestic food production x the population.

[Stratovarious]

Oh? Do tell. You never sold grain to the local elevator?

I think what you're trying to say is you had a nice, civil echo chamber. It was still long on spin and short on facts.



Got data to back that up? China is a big market, and the U.S. is a big producer. A total boycott of American grain by China will clearly impact the market for U.S. produce and encourage less efficient farmers worldwide to pay a pretty penny for labor, supplies and other incidentals.

LMAO again, idiot much?

Yea , right, Grain is Agriculture, doesn't shock me that much , the way you post, I'd imagine that's what your
diet ; Grain, more grain, grain, the isopropyl grain alcohol.......more grain, then some more grain, this is
how are able to post the way you do.
''All farmers ship to silos'' :facepalm:

...PLUS another bonus;
Your understanding of farming ; Grain


:frog:

:facepalm:

[acptulsa]

I see a lot of spin. But I see no reason to believe the tariff war will leave American farmers unscathed.

[Swordsmyth]

I see a lot of spin. But I see no reason to believe the tariff war will leave American farmers unscathed.
See your optometrist.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not if the reason he didn't sell to that person was because that person bought his food from Hirohito.

Again, if it had been more profitable for Joe to sell to Hirohito's customer ("Yoko"), he would have already been doing that.

1. Chang switches to Hirohito because of the tariff (Hirohito now being cheaper than Joe).

2. Yoko, who was paying less than Chang (otherwise Joe would've already been selling to him), is now looking for a supplier.

3. Joe now agrees to sell to Yoko, at a lower price than he'd been selling to Chang.

[Swordsmyth]

Again, if it had been more profitable for Joe to sell to Hirohito's customer ("Yoko"), he would have already been doing that.

1. Chang switches to Hirohito because of the tariff (Hirohito now being cheaper than Joe).

2. Yoko, who was paying less than Chang (otherwise Joe would've already been selling to him), is now looking for a supplier.

3. Joe now agrees to sell to Yoko, at a lower price than he'd been selling to Chang.
What makes you think Joe could have sold to Yoko or that Yoko pays less?
How much food can Yoko eat and how much food does Joe have to sell?

[r3volution 3.0]

What makes you think Joe could have sold to Yoko or that Yoko pays less?

How much food can Yoko eat and how much food does Joe have to sell?

What's the price of chicken in Kansas city?

You're missing the point.

Reread what I wrote.

[Swordsmyth]

What's the price of chicken in Kansas city?

You're missing the point.

Reread what I wrote.
I'm not missing the point, you asserted that Yoko could have been sold to before the tariffs but that that didn't happen because Yoko would not pay as much but there is no reason to accept that assertion.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not missing the point, you asserted that Yoko could have been sold to before the tariffs but that that didn't happen because Yoko would not pay as much but there is no reason to accept that assertion.

:upsidedown:

Okay, if Yoko was willing to pay Joe more than Chang, why wouldn't Joe have sold to Yoko instead of Chang.

Is Joe an idiot?

[Swordsmyth]

:upsidedown:

Okay, if Yoko was willing to pay Joe more than Chang, why wouldn't Joe have sold to Yoko instead of Chang.

Is Joe an idiot?
Why are you assuming that Yoko paid a different price than Chang?

[r3volution 3.0]

Why are you assuming that Yoko paid a different price than Chang?

Because Joe was, pre-tariff, selling to Chang rather than Yoko.

Joe was doing that because Chang paid more than Yoko (unless Joe is an idiot).

[Swordsmyth]

Because Joe was, pre-tariff, selling to Chang rather than Yoko.

Joe was doing that because Chang paid more than Yoko (unless Joe is an idiot).
Somebody sold to Yoko, were they an idiot? Why didn't they sell to Chang?

[r3volution 3.0]

Somebody sold to Yoko, were they an idiot? Why didn't they sell to Chang?

...which illustrates the limits of this kind of analysis.

There are factors others than price (i.e. quality).

The bottom line is that Joe and Chang chose each other as the most mutually beneficial trade partners, as did Hirohito and Yoko.

...otherwise, neither pair would have ended up the way they were.

The tariffs wreck this happy arrangement.

Think about a simpler example: you sell stuff to your neighbor, the feds outlaw this behavior - are you richer or poorer?

[Swordsmyth]

...which illustrates the limits of this kind of analysis.

There are factors others than price (i.e. quality).

The bottom line is that Joe and Chang chose each other as the most mutually beneficial trade partners, as did Hirohito and Yoko.

...otherwise, neither pair would have ended up the way they were.

The tariffs wreck this happy arrangement.
And sometimes there is no significant difference and both buyers are paying the same price, the tariffs have not had any significant impact on farm prices.


Think about a simpler example: you sell stuff to your neighbor, the feds outlaw this behavior - are you richer or poorer?
It depends on whether I can continue to sell just as much to someone else at the same price.
Without a good reason the ban would still be a bad thing but there is a very good reason for the tariffs.

[r3volution 3.0]

And sometimes there is no significant difference and both buyers are paying the same price, the tariffs have not had any significant impact on farm prices.

It's possible that submitting all economic decisions to a random number generator would result in output along the Production Possibilities Frontier.

...but it isn't very likely.


It depends on whether I can continue to sell just as much to someone else at the same price.

You won't. There aren't an infinity of people willing to buy/sell things at a given price.

Have you never seen/heard of the demand curve?


Without a good reason the ban would still be a bad thing but there is a very good reason for the tariffs.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/a3zqvrH40Cdhu/giphy.gif