Why U. S. farmers rely on soy (and why they're in trouble)
video description
Date: 2025-10-11
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
StephenHutchison
Having been alive and cognizant in the world when Richard Nixon tried to fix the Vietnam-damaged economy with its rampant stagflation and the disastrous three-years-crop-failure that was crushing farms, I remember quite clearly that he created the agriculture czar position which created the concentration and encouraged the corporate engulf-and-devour of formerly family farms.
The touted collapse (according to the loud Republican whining in Congress) of the farm loan program (at least partly because of the hysterical paranoia and bad economics of the Republicans) resulted in the replacement of that system with an explanded subsidies program and THAT enabled the massive exploitations by the Agri-corps.
So we saw soybeans being pushed hard into the food chain in America and exported to places that also used them.
Wait, what does that mean Well, the farm loan program was the result of Teddy Roosevelt, W. H. Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, trying to solve the problems faced by rural families, the FARM families which were the source for the majority of food consumed in America. So Woodrow Wilson Congress in 1916, created the Farm Loan Act. It did not prevent the Great Depression, it did not even stop the problems of farms being sucked under by the banks with extortionate mortgages -- but it slowed that bank foreclosure down immensely by creating credit associations, that were later merged into banks in 1987.
The old model was take a loan to cover some of the costs of the crop planting, growing the crop, and then when it's harvested, pay off the loan and have some profit left over to operate.
Note that this up-front loan was the majority of the support, but certain crops were under-represented because of market forces. These were subsidized in small amounts under the same set of laws. They weren't intended to do more than encourage people to get a second income stream as a buffer.
That model didn't work when crops failed, and that was happening when Nixon was President.
The new model pushed by Nixon's agriculture Czar Earl Lauer Rusty Butz (yes there were Butz jokes) was that the government would just PAY the farmer a subsidy to grow a particular crop. There were several specific crops, soybeans being one of them, that paid out disproportionately. Butz hated the New Deal programs that helped small family farms, and was getting kickbacks from big business farmers. This is why the agri-businesses started buying up small farms that were operating on margins and couldn't really make it with subsidies based on the amount they couldn't grow on their small farm.
We've been stuck with agricultural subsides paying to agri-biz as the main model (and they ARE the main owners by far -- they have been buying families out for decades) since 1973.
And that's exactly how the bail-out of agri-big-biz began.
reply
Having been alive and cognizant in the world when Richard Nixon tried to fix the Vietnam-damaged economy with its rampant stagflation and the disastrous three-years-crop-failure that was crushing farms, I remember quite clearly that he created the agriculture czar position which created the concentration and encouraged the corporate engulf-and-devour of formerly family farms.
The touted collapse (according to the loud Republican whining in Congress) of the farm loan program (at least partly because of the hysterical paranoia and bad economics of the Republicans) resulted in the replacement of that system with an explanded subsidies program and THAT enabled the massive exploitations by the Agri-corps.
So we saw soybeans being pushed hard into the food chain in America and exported to places that also used them.
Wait, what does that mean Well, the farm loan program was the result of Teddy Roosevelt, W. H. Taft, and Woodrow Wilson, trying to solve the problems faced by rural families, the FARM families which were the source for the majority of food consumed in America. So Woodrow Wilson Congress in 1916, created the Farm Loan Act. It did not prevent the Great Depression, it did not even stop the problems of farms being sucked under by the banks with extortionate mortgages -- but it slowed that bank foreclosure down immensely by creating credit associations, that were later merged into banks in 1987.
The old model was take a loan to cover some of the costs of the crop planting, growing the crop, and then when it's harvested, pay off the loan and have some profit left over to operate.
Note that this up-front loan was the majority of the support, but certain crops were under-represented because of market forces. These were subsidized in small amounts under the same set of laws. They weren't intended to do more than encourage people to get a second income stream as a buffer.
That model didn't work when crops failed, and that was happening when Nixon was President.
The new model pushed by Nixon's agriculture Czar Earl Lauer Rusty Butz (yes there were Butz jokes) was that the government would just PAY the farmer a subsidy to grow a particular crop. There were several specific crops, soybeans being one of them, that paid out disproportionately. Butz hated the New Deal programs that helped small family farms, and was getting kickbacks from big business farmers. This is why the agri-businesses started buying up small farms that were operating on margins and couldn't really make it with subsidies based on the amount they couldn't grow on their small farm.
We've been stuck with agricultural subsides paying to agri-biz as the main model (and they ARE the main owners by far -- they have been buying families out for decades) since 1973.
And that's exactly how the bail-out of agri-big-biz began.
reply
LindsayMuller25
I grew up on a high income, high bet worth farm in southern minnesota, i have a degree in ecology, did research at a university farm, and am now in master's school for a plant science degree with hopes of eventually doing a PhD. I appreciate this video so much. You broke down the socio-political issues of the agriculture industry in an easy to understand way for people who are not on the inside. My family is very democratic, but that is rare in the industry. Most farmers i know (just like you mentioned) vote republican because they fall into the low income, high net worth group that could be at risk if loosing their farm because of extremely high land taxes. That and cultural reasons such as the traditional good christian household. Unfortunatey voting republican for low land taxes would help them in the short term, but not likely the long term for reasons such as tariffs. But many people are uneducated/misinformed about the larger economic and political policies that would directly and indirectly impact them. The trump administration knows this. This is why its such a big deal that Brooke Rollin's doesnt come out publicly with this information.
The agriculture industrial complex extends beyond politics and international trade. Its also a pretty major part of the military industrial complex and even big phsrma as well. That is an entire crazy can of worms on its own. Big agrubuisness has played a major role in many of our international conflicts throughout american history, and obviously it playes a direct role in food rationing for soldiers and civilians alike. The link between agriculture, the military, public policy, economics, coorporate policy, and the ruling class is absolutely insane. You could make entire college classes on these topics alone.
These are cincepts i wish the general public (and farmers for that matter) had a better understanding of. Knowing the inner workings about the ways in which agriculture is so intrinsically linked with everythubg in our society really shape's a person's world view.
reply
I grew up on a high income, high bet worth farm in southern minnesota, i have a degree in ecology, did research at a university farm, and am now in master's school for a plant science degree with hopes of eventually doing a PhD. I appreciate this video so much. You broke down the socio-political issues of the agriculture industry in an easy to understand way for people who are not on the inside. My family is very democratic, but that is rare in the industry. Most farmers i know (just like you mentioned) vote republican because they fall into the low income, high net worth group that could be at risk if loosing their farm because of extremely high land taxes. That and cultural reasons such as the traditional good christian household. Unfortunatey voting republican for low land taxes would help them in the short term, but not likely the long term for reasons such as tariffs. But many people are uneducated/misinformed about the larger economic and political policies that would directly and indirectly impact them. The trump administration knows this. This is why its such a big deal that Brooke Rollin's doesnt come out publicly with this information.
The agriculture industrial complex extends beyond politics and international trade. Its also a pretty major part of the military industrial complex and even big phsrma as well. That is an entire crazy can of worms on its own. Big agrubuisness has played a major role in many of our international conflicts throughout american history, and obviously it playes a direct role in food rationing for soldiers and civilians alike. The link between agriculture, the military, public policy, economics, coorporate policy, and the ruling class is absolutely insane. You could make entire college classes on these topics alone.
These are cincepts i wish the general public (and farmers for that matter) had a better understanding of. Knowing the inner workings about the ways in which agriculture is so intrinsically linked with everythubg in our society really shape's a person's world view.
reply
codetaku7
Maybe this will mean we'll finally get affordable edamame to snack on Never understood why in other parts of the world, its commonly snacked on but here instead of just selling it like that, they market it as like an 'exotic Asian' snack and it's expensive. Also, I had a bit of a chuckle when you said corn is easy to grow and you barely need humans to grow it any more. I get your point, but corn literally can't grow on its own. If you just planted it in your yard and left it alone, it would grow up, fall over, die, and rot. It's one of the crops so selectively bred that it can no longer survive unaided. It's a pretty fascinating plant, really, because nobody even knows who or why exactly corn was cultivated. They know it started out as completely and entirely inedible grass in South America and there is actually tons of extremely heated debate of how it got from that point to where it is now. They had a conference about it in the late 1970s to discuss corns original cultivation. The conference had to be ended early when fistfights broke out.
I think what you mean by normally, tariffs are set by Congress is not so much 'normally' as 'legally' and 'constitutionally'. Because all of the courts thus far have said it is patently illegal for the President to set tariffs. That's why 'normally' they don't do that. Prior Presidents generally at least attempted to follow US law and the Constitution. Tariffs can totally make sense, like what you described for steel and I'd even agree things should be done to build chip manufacturing capacity in the US and tariffs might help with that, but stuff like putting a tariff on vanilla beans which we are literally incapable of growing That almost makes it seem like zero thought was put into the matter at all. At this point, though, anyone who is worried about the next election is delusional.
reply
Maybe this will mean we'll finally get affordable edamame to snack on Never understood why in other parts of the world, its commonly snacked on but here instead of just selling it like that, they market it as like an 'exotic Asian' snack and it's expensive. Also, I had a bit of a chuckle when you said corn is easy to grow and you barely need humans to grow it any more. I get your point, but corn literally can't grow on its own. If you just planted it in your yard and left it alone, it would grow up, fall over, die, and rot. It's one of the crops so selectively bred that it can no longer survive unaided. It's a pretty fascinating plant, really, because nobody even knows who or why exactly corn was cultivated. They know it started out as completely and entirely inedible grass in South America and there is actually tons of extremely heated debate of how it got from that point to where it is now. They had a conference about it in the late 1970s to discuss corns original cultivation. The conference had to be ended early when fistfights broke out.
I think what you mean by normally, tariffs are set by Congress is not so much 'normally' as 'legally' and 'constitutionally'. Because all of the courts thus far have said it is patently illegal for the President to set tariffs. That's why 'normally' they don't do that. Prior Presidents generally at least attempted to follow US law and the Constitution. Tariffs can totally make sense, like what you described for steel and I'd even agree things should be done to build chip manufacturing capacity in the US and tariffs might help with that, but stuff like putting a tariff on vanilla beans which we are literally incapable of growing That almost makes it seem like zero thought was put into the matter at all. At this point, though, anyone who is worried about the next election is delusional.
reply
cclockwise_ll3
Politics have influenced my life so much. Why then would I not care about politics Why would anyone not care
I am so much happier as a person when we designate land use for nature and downtowns than for huge, hot parking lots.
Politics is keeping helium balloons legal while we are running out of this precious, limited, and medically vital resource for short-term fun and profit.
I pay my taxes and ended up using Medicaid for about a year, and I'm glad that we have this social safety net. (I have autism and because of that, I was not going to qualify for any low-cost unsubsidized plan which sucks)
Politics designates what governmental jobs are important, and I would have loved to work for the DNR if there were more jobs in natural resource conservation. We have the money to do that and choose to allocate it elsewhere.
Politics gave me an excellent public school with AP classes while other public schools are left in the dirt because of how we fund schools.
Politics infleunces how safe our communities are because when we keep choosing to ignore housing-first solutions for homeless people, societal costs go up waaay more than when homeless people are given homes, job training, and rehabilitation. (not that this would completely solve homelessness, but still)
As an autistic/neurodivergent person, the world is not built for me and politics plays a huge role in that, so I always paid attention. I recognized urban sprawl in elementary school. I recognized that we're wasting precious resources.
Politics allowed lobbyists to take over our government, and so political parties don't have to care about constituents. Supposedly we are the employers though, and we need to keep paying attention. and someday pressure the Supreme Court to reverse Citizens United.
reply
Politics have influenced my life so much. Why then would I not care about politics Why would anyone not care
I am so much happier as a person when we designate land use for nature and downtowns than for huge, hot parking lots.
Politics is keeping helium balloons legal while we are running out of this precious, limited, and medically vital resource for short-term fun and profit.
I pay my taxes and ended up using Medicaid for about a year, and I'm glad that we have this social safety net. (I have autism and because of that, I was not going to qualify for any low-cost unsubsidized plan which sucks)
Politics designates what governmental jobs are important, and I would have loved to work for the DNR if there were more jobs in natural resource conservation. We have the money to do that and choose to allocate it elsewhere.
Politics gave me an excellent public school with AP classes while other public schools are left in the dirt because of how we fund schools.
Politics infleunces how safe our communities are because when we keep choosing to ignore housing-first solutions for homeless people, societal costs go up waaay more than when homeless people are given homes, job training, and rehabilitation. (not that this would completely solve homelessness, but still)
As an autistic/neurodivergent person, the world is not built for me and politics plays a huge role in that, so I always paid attention. I recognized urban sprawl in elementary school. I recognized that we're wasting precious resources.
Politics allowed lobbyists to take over our government, and so political parties don't have to care about constituents. Supposedly we are the employers though, and we need to keep paying attention. and someday pressure the Supreme Court to reverse Citizens United.
reply
TedApelt
The problem is powerful interests getting control of the nexus of that. And when does that not happen Well, it always that will always happen by default. That is human history. It you can that goes back to the chariot whatever if there's any the long bow. Whenever there is something some technology that represents some kind of strategic advantage, a way of holding on to wealth and power, people with wealth and power will try to monopolize and dominate that technology. And without a government, that's happened throughout history and now it's happening now. the the whole point of government is all the people gathered together and collectively say, No, we're not going to let a few rich [ __ ] control our lives. Well, that's not Yeah, but that hasn't worked out.
Well, it worked out great for a while and but now we're getting into an era where the the you know, the rich and the powerful have really powerful tools. Government wasn't able to adapt quickly enough to it and we got behind the eightball. Now we're in a position where there's too much overlap between, you know, the billionaires and the tech companies and the government. The government is that. That's what I'm saying. I'm not I wouldn't say it is that, but when Trump did when Trump's there's way too much overlap now. They have way too much control. It It doesn't mean that there's no way out. It just means that we have to be way more active. We can't just like pay attention for a couple of months and vote once every four years and think we're going to be managing our government.
Dr. Steven Novella
reply
The problem is powerful interests getting control of the nexus of that. And when does that not happen Well, it always that will always happen by default. That is human history. It you can that goes back to the chariot whatever if there's any the long bow. Whenever there is something some technology that represents some kind of strategic advantage, a way of holding on to wealth and power, people with wealth and power will try to monopolize and dominate that technology. And without a government, that's happened throughout history and now it's happening now. the the whole point of government is all the people gathered together and collectively say, No, we're not going to let a few rich [ __ ] control our lives. Well, that's not Yeah, but that hasn't worked out.
Well, it worked out great for a while and but now we're getting into an era where the the you know, the rich and the powerful have really powerful tools. Government wasn't able to adapt quickly enough to it and we got behind the eightball. Now we're in a position where there's too much overlap between, you know, the billionaires and the tech companies and the government. The government is that. That's what I'm saying. I'm not I wouldn't say it is that, but when Trump did when Trump's there's way too much overlap now. They have way too much control. It It doesn't mean that there's no way out. It just means that we have to be way more active. We can't just like pay attention for a couple of months and vote once every four years and think we're going to be managing our government.
Dr. Steven Novella
reply
aragusea
Buying produces wherever it is chepest to get them (I. E you never apply any tarifs) _isn't more efficent. _ It's more _rotten. _ All it really does is exploit the most surplus value out of the global populations with the least power to resist exploitation.
To put it another way, say Mexican steel is cheaper than American steel. The Mexican labourers aren't doing less work than their American counterparts. $X worth of steel is still $X worth of steel and it takes Y amount of working hours to produce it. But they are being _paid_ less.
The workers generally have to be paid enough to sustain themselves and their work (sometimes companies are able to get away with not paying them even this much for various reasons) but the amount of value sold amounts to more than that, and there fore there is a difference between these two amounts is the _surplus value. _
So when you buy Mexican steel, in this hypothetical situation, the economy isn't operating any more efficently except in the sense that less wealth is beign concentrated in the hands of the rich. When American steelworkers exepcts a fair wage, _there is effectively asking for their cut of the surplus value. _ Outsourcing to foreign countries means more exploitation of those countries. This is the mechanism that contributed to the wealth of Europe and the global north more than any pretensions of superior culture or technology: colonial exploitation.
reply
Buying produces wherever it is chepest to get them (I. E you never apply any tarifs) _isn't more efficent. _ It's more _rotten. _ All it really does is exploit the most surplus value out of the global populations with the least power to resist exploitation.
To put it another way, say Mexican steel is cheaper than American steel. The Mexican labourers aren't doing less work than their American counterparts. $X worth of steel is still $X worth of steel and it takes Y amount of working hours to produce it. But they are being _paid_ less.
The workers generally have to be paid enough to sustain themselves and their work (sometimes companies are able to get away with not paying them even this much for various reasons) but the amount of value sold amounts to more than that, and there fore there is a difference between these two amounts is the _surplus value. _
So when you buy Mexican steel, in this hypothetical situation, the economy isn't operating any more efficently except in the sense that less wealth is beign concentrated in the hands of the rich. When American steelworkers exepcts a fair wage, _there is effectively asking for their cut of the surplus value. _ Outsourcing to foreign countries means more exploitation of those countries. This is the mechanism that contributed to the wealth of Europe and the global north more than any pretensions of superior culture or technology: colonial exploitation.
reply
zabdireyes3150
I love your content, Adam, though I disagree with what you call a cynical take on the interpretation of why U. S. policy seems to be about bailing out the Argentine government.
In my view, a truly cynical take would be something like: The U. S. doesn’t see Argentina as a strategic ally, but rather as a client state drowned in debt to serve the American imperial agenda.
More than Trump wanting to showcase Javier Milei’s political model as something worth replicating in the U. S, it would mean he seeks further deregulation of the so-called marketswhich doesn’t exactly align with Trump’s ties to the industrial complex, since full deregulation rarely benefits capital in the way it’s advertised. Without a state enforcing contracts and maintaining a monopoly on force, even capital loses its foundation.
In reality, deregulation only serves capital through selective regulationrules shaped in favor of certain industries or even specific corporations tied to political or economic power. The so-called free market promoted by liberals doesn’t exist, and it couldn’t exist, because markets always rely on a framework of laws, enforcement, and protection of private property backed by the state. What is presented as freedom is often just the state reorganizing its intervention to secure profitability for particular interests, not to ensure fairness or openness.
reply
I love your content, Adam, though I disagree with what you call a cynical take on the interpretation of why U. S. policy seems to be about bailing out the Argentine government.
In my view, a truly cynical take would be something like: The U. S. doesn’t see Argentina as a strategic ally, but rather as a client state drowned in debt to serve the American imperial agenda.
More than Trump wanting to showcase Javier Milei’s political model as something worth replicating in the U. S, it would mean he seeks further deregulation of the so-called marketswhich doesn’t exactly align with Trump’s ties to the industrial complex, since full deregulation rarely benefits capital in the way it’s advertised. Without a state enforcing contracts and maintaining a monopoly on force, even capital loses its foundation.
In reality, deregulation only serves capital through selective regulationrules shaped in favor of certain industries or even specific corporations tied to political or economic power. The so-called free market promoted by liberals doesn’t exist, and it couldn’t exist, because markets always rely on a framework of laws, enforcement, and protection of private property backed by the state. What is presented as freedom is often just the state reorganizing its intervention to secure profitability for particular interests, not to ensure fairness or openness.
reply
blose4793
An article in The Australian (9 October 2025) highlights the tough situation American soybean farmers are facing as China has stopped buying U. S. soybeans. Between January and August 2025, Chinese imports dropped to just over 200 million bushels, compared to nearly 1 billion during the same time last year. Farmers like Ron Kindred and Morey Hill are dealing with falling prices, rising equipment and fertilizer costs, and an oversupply of crops. Many have unsold harvests, with some choosing to store their crops instead of selling at a loss. In response, the U. S. Congress approved a $10 billion bailout in December, and the Trump administration is considering another $1014 billion in aid, possibly funded by tariff revenues. President Trump is expected to meet with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to finalize the plan. Farmers are looking at alternative markets in countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Morocco, but these markets are too small to replace China, which previously accounted for over half of U. S. soybean exports. Many farmers are concerned about the sustainability of their operations, with some already leaving the industry due to financial struggles. The uncertainty around trade policies and market access is making future planning harder. Some farmers still support Trump, seeing the tariffs as necessary short-term pain for long-term gain.
reply
An article in The Australian (9 October 2025) highlights the tough situation American soybean farmers are facing as China has stopped buying U. S. soybeans. Between January and August 2025, Chinese imports dropped to just over 200 million bushels, compared to nearly 1 billion during the same time last year. Farmers like Ron Kindred and Morey Hill are dealing with falling prices, rising equipment and fertilizer costs, and an oversupply of crops. Many have unsold harvests, with some choosing to store their crops instead of selling at a loss. In response, the U. S. Congress approved a $10 billion bailout in December, and the Trump administration is considering another $1014 billion in aid, possibly funded by tariff revenues. President Trump is expected to meet with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to finalize the plan. Farmers are looking at alternative markets in countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Morocco, but these markets are too small to replace China, which previously accounted for over half of U. S. soybean exports. Many farmers are concerned about the sustainability of their operations, with some already leaving the industry due to financial struggles. The uncertainty around trade policies and market access is making future planning harder. Some farmers still support Trump, seeing the tariffs as necessary short-term pain for long-term gain.
reply
agony-4-hope725
You are missing the fact that U. S. borders are to be locked down in the event of a nation wide civil unrest(civil war. All of this is deception to keep other nations guessing while the nation prepares for war. We will need those cheap beans for soldiers MREs. Unfortunately a war-time administration is always bad for economy in-border. It's going to be a lot of actions that won't do anything, but seem to harm American households. If the effect is positive for the war effort Then it's what they will do. Look, I'm just saying, everyone now thinks what Lincoln did was great. My family was here before & after. Most people hated what was done before, during, and after the first Civil War. Nearly everyone was starving poor. People had no decent wages, no savings, money not worth what you paid for, no labor laws, no dental, no refrigeration, no land, no work, no food, no faith, and no schools. It wasn't because people started that way. That's what the war did. Every time people would start to advance- war. Not saying your wrong in heart, but this is going to get much uglier. Do yourself a favor, read Blood Meridian, checkout some history on life during/after the Reformation, and remind yourself that this is barely the start. Got kids Well, you need to stay calm for the next 50 or so years so they don't panic. Oh, and- Welcome to Hard Times!
reply
You are missing the fact that U. S. borders are to be locked down in the event of a nation wide civil unrest(civil war. All of this is deception to keep other nations guessing while the nation prepares for war. We will need those cheap beans for soldiers MREs. Unfortunately a war-time administration is always bad for economy in-border. It's going to be a lot of actions that won't do anything, but seem to harm American households. If the effect is positive for the war effort Then it's what they will do. Look, I'm just saying, everyone now thinks what Lincoln did was great. My family was here before & after. Most people hated what was done before, during, and after the first Civil War. Nearly everyone was starving poor. People had no decent wages, no savings, money not worth what you paid for, no labor laws, no dental, no refrigeration, no land, no work, no food, no faith, and no schools. It wasn't because people started that way. That's what the war did. Every time people would start to advance- war. Not saying your wrong in heart, but this is going to get much uglier. Do yourself a favor, read Blood Meridian, checkout some history on life during/after the Reformation, and remind yourself that this is barely the start. Got kids Well, you need to stay calm for the next 50 or so years so they don't panic. Oh, and- Welcome to Hard Times!
reply
wolf310ii
Its always funny when muricans get pissed when other countrys use the globalisation and free market like the US (sell high, buy low.
A few years ago i watched a documentation about US soy farmers and them whining about China buying their soy elsewhere. For muricans globalisation is, they can sell world wide and everyone else has to buy from them, and muricans dictate the prices.
Also it wasnt just the co op dont buying anything else than soy, even if they wanted to grow something else, they couldnt, because of the special designed seeds, fertilizers and herbizides they used, nothing else would grow for years on their fields (without the special fertilizer the seed wont start growing and the special herbizide would kill everything except the special seed, also the harvest couldnt be used to produce their own seeds, because either the plants were manipulated in a way that it wouldnt work or they were prohobited by a contract with hefty fines)
reply
Its always funny when muricans get pissed when other countrys use the globalisation and free market like the US (sell high, buy low.
A few years ago i watched a documentation about US soy farmers and them whining about China buying their soy elsewhere. For muricans globalisation is, they can sell world wide and everyone else has to buy from them, and muricans dictate the prices.
Also it wasnt just the co op dont buying anything else than soy, even if they wanted to grow something else, they couldnt, because of the special designed seeds, fertilizers and herbizides they used, nothing else would grow for years on their fields (without the special fertilizer the seed wont start growing and the special herbizide would kill everything except the special seed, also the harvest couldnt be used to produce their own seeds, because either the plants were manipulated in a way that it wouldnt work or they were prohobited by a contract with hefty fines)
reply
SAABJAGUAR
No bail out. Deal with it.
That is not capitalism. It call competition. They were wearing MAGA hats all day last week. He needs to face the reality of capitalism. Capitalism requires adjusting to the times.
Being stock with it is just part of the game. There should not be any bail out. Banks do not red bail out and farmers do not need it either.
If he fails, that is just part of it. He needs to file bankruptcy and get a job at Walmart.
Maybe this will shed some light on what capitalism is really set to do.
As an economic system, capitalism is prone to market failure due to the inefficiency of the market to allocate certain goods and resources. Invariably, the freedom of individuals and firms to use any means to pursue their own self-interest leads to apocryphal results for society as a whole.
So, keep the MAGA hat in and report to for next shift at Walmart or your local tractor supply. Stop complaining and crying.
reply
No bail out. Deal with it.
That is not capitalism. It call competition. They were wearing MAGA hats all day last week. He needs to face the reality of capitalism. Capitalism requires adjusting to the times.
Being stock with it is just part of the game. There should not be any bail out. Banks do not red bail out and farmers do not need it either.
If he fails, that is just part of it. He needs to file bankruptcy and get a job at Walmart.
Maybe this will shed some light on what capitalism is really set to do.
As an economic system, capitalism is prone to market failure due to the inefficiency of the market to allocate certain goods and resources. Invariably, the freedom of individuals and firms to use any means to pursue their own self-interest leads to apocryphal results for society as a whole.
So, keep the MAGA hat in and report to for next shift at Walmart or your local tractor supply. Stop complaining and crying.
reply
VincentConti-m5j
Those are serious numbers in the soybean biz. Anythiing that drops just 10 percnt is called a crisis today. This cook just learned me something about tarrifs that i have never heard anywhere. If the tarrifs appear to be temporary they lose the most important benefit.
There is a secondary market in the tarrif business. In the case the Supreme Court decides against trump's tarrifs they will need to be refunded. Traders are buying the rights to those refunds at a large discount. Like buying debt. Those instruments have risen in value and been resold already at enormous profit. These are the giants in investment banking doing this. I believe they know the likely outcome. If i were younger i would bet on it!
reply
Those are serious numbers in the soybean biz. Anythiing that drops just 10 percnt is called a crisis today. This cook just learned me something about tarrifs that i have never heard anywhere. If the tarrifs appear to be temporary they lose the most important benefit.
There is a secondary market in the tarrif business. In the case the Supreme Court decides against trump's tarrifs they will need to be refunded. Traders are buying the rights to those refunds at a large discount. Like buying debt. Those instruments have risen in value and been resold already at enormous profit. These are the giants in investment banking doing this. I believe they know the likely outcome. If i were younger i would bet on it!
reply
damsonrhea
At this point, I sort of think that there's no decision that will slow down the rate of big agribusiness buying farms.
Bailouts help them more than everyone else, while a lack of bailout destroys the smaller farms, letting them consume more of the market. The only thing that could slow this down would be the regulation stepping in, but regulation that works requires knowledgeable market actors experienced in the sector and some cooperation from that sector.
Basically, if the factors to slow down this takeover existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would require that Farmers weren't the kind of people who would vote for Trump, knowing who and what Trump was.
reply
At this point, I sort of think that there's no decision that will slow down the rate of big agribusiness buying farms.
Bailouts help them more than everyone else, while a lack of bailout destroys the smaller farms, letting them consume more of the market. The only thing that could slow this down would be the regulation stepping in, but regulation that works requires knowledgeable market actors experienced in the sector and some cooperation from that sector.
Basically, if the factors to slow down this takeover existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would require that Farmers weren't the kind of people who would vote for Trump, knowing who and what Trump was.
reply
rogofos
trump said he'd use tariff revenue to subsidise farmers
here's the thing, the whole point of a tariff is to reduce trade because it only applies to trade
but if it only applies to trade that means the whole point of tariffs is to minimise the revenue from tariffs because less trade = less stuff to tax with the tariff
in other words the revenue in question is pretty much always tiny compared to the effects on the economy
that's kind of the general principle - tariffs don't make a lot of revenue (unless you have 0 domestic supply in which case it's a glorified consumption tax)
reply
trump said he'd use tariff revenue to subsidise farmers
here's the thing, the whole point of a tariff is to reduce trade because it only applies to trade
but if it only applies to trade that means the whole point of tariffs is to minimise the revenue from tariffs because less trade = less stuff to tax with the tariff
in other words the revenue in question is pretty much always tiny compared to the effects on the economy
that's kind of the general principle - tariffs don't make a lot of revenue (unless you have 0 domestic supply in which case it's a glorified consumption tax)
reply
t. r. everstone7
While I do find this incredibly interesting, I do worry about the rising trend mentioned in the first few seconds of our press actively spying on our politicians like papparazzi. What if they are leaking things that are classified and should NOT be public knowledge What if they are leaking things that make it easier for other countries to hurt us Free press is great, but should they really be doing the same things foreign spies would also do Idk, maybe it's fine, but it feels like a slippery slope to betraying the country.
reply
While I do find this incredibly interesting, I do worry about the rising trend mentioned in the first few seconds of our press actively spying on our politicians like papparazzi. What if they are leaking things that are classified and should NOT be public knowledge What if they are leaking things that make it easier for other countries to hurt us Free press is great, but should they really be doing the same things foreign spies would also do Idk, maybe it's fine, but it feels like a slippery slope to betraying the country.
reply
dockutter6060
90% of the soybean crops planted in the US are GMO. UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION. It's the same for corn. all GMO and unsafe to consume. Normally the harvests would go to plants producing ethanol but that's slowing because of the EV auto industry. And think about the GMO soybeans sold to China so the can export soy products, tofu, tempeh, edamame, and soy milk back to the US for consumption, even though the long term effects of the GMO seeds aren't known or understood.
reply
90% of the soybean crops planted in the US are GMO. UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION. It's the same for corn. all GMO and unsafe to consume. Normally the harvests would go to plants producing ethanol but that's slowing because of the EV auto industry. And think about the GMO soybeans sold to China so the can export soy products, tofu, tempeh, edamame, and soy milk back to the US for consumption, even though the long term effects of the GMO seeds aren't known or understood.
reply
PanicProvisions
It may be painful and risky to speak up, it might be incredibly costly on an individual level like yours in a game theory sense (i. e. everyone benefits if people speak up but the brave few who do pay the price, but the alternative is both unconscionable and way, way costlier in the long run. History has shown us this again and again and maybe we should finally learn that lesson. I happen to be German and that's something that will be painfully relevent for us in perpetuity.
reply
It may be painful and risky to speak up, it might be incredibly costly on an individual level like yours in a game theory sense (i. e. everyone benefits if people speak up but the brave few who do pay the price, but the alternative is both unconscionable and way, way costlier in the long run. History has shown us this again and again and maybe we should finally learn that lesson. I happen to be German and that's something that will be painfully relevent for us in perpetuity.
reply
aragusea
You’re mistaken about Argentina making soybeans cheaper by removing the tariff. China would have paid the same amount in both cases. What the government actually did was remove the tariff that farmers had been absorbing. In this specific case, it wasn’t the farmers who benefited because Argentina’s soybean harvest takes place in April the exporting companies captured the entire margin. China only received a larger supply of soybeans, but still at the regular market price.
reply
You’re mistaken about Argentina making soybeans cheaper by removing the tariff. China would have paid the same amount in both cases. What the government actually did was remove the tariff that farmers had been absorbing. In this specific case, it wasn’t the farmers who benefited because Argentina’s soybean harvest takes place in April the exporting companies captured the entire margin. China only received a larger supply of soybeans, but still at the regular market price.
reply
annesmith7548
My parents were both farm kids, and most of their many siblings stayed in farm country. They all voted for Trump. I no longer have sympathy for farmers, they always claim to be against hand outs and yet they knowingly voted thinking they'd get more hand outs. So pass a law that Big Ag can't buy any more land. let new, smarter family farmers buy up the farms that these idiots lose/lost. Survival of the fittest, hasn't that always been the Right Wing mantra
reply
My parents were both farm kids, and most of their many siblings stayed in farm country. They all voted for Trump. I no longer have sympathy for farmers, they always claim to be against hand outs and yet they knowingly voted thinking they'd get more hand outs. So pass a law that Big Ag can't buy any more land. let new, smarter family farmers buy up the farms that these idiots lose/lost. Survival of the fittest, hasn't that always been the Right Wing mantra
reply
tsugal11
As a person that grew up in a family of farmers and ranchers, I thank you for explaining the soybean problem. (We don’t have any soybean farmers in the fam, tho) Many Americans do not understand the issue.
Also, you did a great job of explaining the problem with tariffs. I soooo wish all the Dump crazy MAGA people would LISTEN to you and understand this. But they just won’t! I’m so sick of living in this dumb MAGA world. I can’t afford it.
reply
As a person that grew up in a family of farmers and ranchers, I thank you for explaining the soybean problem. (We don’t have any soybean farmers in the fam, tho) Many Americans do not understand the issue.
Also, you did a great job of explaining the problem with tariffs. I soooo wish all the Dump crazy MAGA people would LISTEN to you and understand this. But they just won’t! I’m so sick of living in this dumb MAGA world. I can’t afford it.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
