• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We grow the same amount of food on 30% of the land area

Threegoofs said:
Prices are super low.

Guess no one is dying of starvation anymore. [emoji849]
Click to expand...
Wrong.

Still massive numbers die of poverty and hunger.

If the price was allowed to fall to where it should be, free market economics, then millions less would die each year. Billions would see massive economic growth at a rate that would make China look like a snail not a tiger. The whole world would boom with new markets for all our goods from technology to whisky.

The only "loosers" would be millionair land owners who would see less income for a few years untill the wealth of the world got to be so much more than now. The they would be better off.
 
LONDON, ENGLAND — The largest corn harvest in history is among the reasons the International Grains Council (IGC) is forecasting record total grains production in 2020-21.


According to the IGC’s Grain Market Review, released Aug. 27, total global grains production will reach 2.230 billion tonnes this marketing year, up 50 million tonnes from the July forecast and 9% higher than the previous year (2.181 billion tonnes).
Click to expand...

Unbelievable!!! 9% in a year over a previous record!!!

So this means that we are growing the same amounty of food (grain at least) on about 25% of the land we needed. Probably less.:)
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wrong.

Still massive numbers die of poverty and hunger.

If the price was allowed to fall to where it should be, free market economics, then millions less would die each year. Billions would see massive economic growth at a rate that would make China look like a snail not a tiger. The whole world would boom with new markets for all our goods from technology to whisky.

The only "loosers" would be millionair land owners who would see less income for a few years untill the wealth of the world got to be so much more than now. The they would be better off.
Click to expand...

Where it ‘should be’?

Right now, the US has a ridiculous surplus of corn and soybeans.Prices are super low, and stockpiles are high- I think we have a couple years of supply just molding in bins.

Food shortage and high prices are not a thing.
 
Threegoofs said:
Where it ‘should be’?

Right now, the US has a ridiculous surplus of corn and soybeans.Prices are super low, and stockpiles are high- I think we have a couple years of supply just molding in bins.

Food shortage and high prices are not a thing.
Click to expand...
If the price was allowed to drop much further it would reduce the deaths of poor people around the world.

I understand you don't like poor people and are far too right wing to allow these poor people to become richer but for those of us outside the new woke mercantilism culture it is a crime against humanity that deserves hanging. Your support for millions of unnecessary deaths and the perpetuation of poverty for no reason other than maintaining soicial hierarchies and some sort of national socialism where facts are not allowed is disgusting.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If the price was allowed to drop much further it would reduce the deaths of poor people around the world.

I understand you don't like poor people and are far too right wing to allow these poor people to become richer but for those of us outside the new woke mercantilism culture it is a crime against humanity that deserves hanging. Your support for millions of unnecessary deaths and the perpetuation of poverty for no reason other than maintaining soicial hierarchies and some sort of national socialism where facts are not allowed is disgusting.
Click to expand...

The price is already at the floor where subsidies are paid.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wrong.

Still massive numbers die of poverty and hunger.

If the price was allowed to fall to where it should be, free market economics, then millions less would die each year. Billions would see massive economic growth at a rate that would make China look like a snail not a tiger. The whole world would boom with new markets for all our goods from technology to whisky.

The only "loosers" would be millionair land owners who would see less income for a few years untill the wealth of the world got to be so much more than now. The they would be better off.
Click to expand...

This is all just not true.

You still haven't provided anything at all that shows millions are now dying from the increased cost of corn and soybeans caused by the biofuel industry.

And if prices were to fall like you think they should then that would put hundreds of small family farms out of business where the millionaires would be able to buy up a lot of farmland and add it to their industrial farms. Then... when all the cropland is owned by the corporations they will start jacking up prices due to a lack of competition.
 
Buzz said:
This is all just not true.

You still haven't provided anything at all that shows millions are now dying from the increased cost of corn and soybeans caused by the biofuel industry.

And if prices were to fall like you think they should then that would put hundreds of small family farms out of business where the millionaires would be able to buy up a lot of farmland and add it to their industrial farms. Then... when all the cropland is owned by the corporations they will start jacking up prices due to a lack of competition.
Click to expand...
No.

If the price of food stops being artificially supported by the practice of removing food from the mouths of people to make biodiesel at no CO2 benefit then the price of land would drop. Small family businesses would find that they could make more profit at a lower intensity farming than the big industrial farms that use clever money management to screw the system.

Your support of corperate farming industry vs poor people is mind bogglingly vile.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If the price of food stops being artificially supported by the practice of removing food from the mouths of people to make biodiesel at no CO2 benefit then the price of land would drop. Small family businesses would find that they could make more profit at a lower intensity farming than the big industrial farms that use clever money management to screw the system.
Click to expand...


That is just completely non-sensical! If there is a drop in the price of crops grown by family farms then where do you think they are going to get extra money to buy more land? And the only reason land prices would dramatically fall would be if there was a glut of land up for sale due to family farms going bankrupt. Plus... less intensive farming is not necessarily more profitable. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Tim the plumber said:
Your support of corperate farming industry vs poor people is mind bogglingly vile.
Click to expand...

BS! I actually support family farms as much as I can by spending the extra money on their higher quality products. And the truth of the matter is that dropping the price of corn and soybean or even sugar is only going to save people a few cents on their food bills.

Your instance on spreading lies and misinformation is morally reprehensible.
 
Buzz said:
That is just completely non-sensical! If there is a drop in the price of crops grown by family farms then where do you think they are going to get extra money to buy more land? And the only reason land prices would dramatically fall would be if there was a glut of land up for sale due to family farms going bankrupt. Plus... less intensive farming is not necessarily more profitable. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.



BS! I actually support family farms as much as I can by spending the extra money on their higher quality products. And the truth of the matter is that dropping the price of corn and soybean or even sugar is only going to save people a few cents on their food bills.

Your instance on spreading lies and misinformation is morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
If the money goes out of farming, the industrial farmers will go out. They cannot do the massive bulk of poor quality food at a profit at that point.

The family farmers will be in the position that the higher quality food they produce and the better understanding of their particular land will allow them to produce food that is brought by far more people especially when the price of it is very low because they are no longer paying the very high land rent price.

Your total avoidance of economics is astounding.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If the money goes out of farming, the industrial farmers will go out. They cannot do the massive bulk of poor quality food at a profit at that point.

The family farmers will be in the position that the higher quality food they produce and the better understanding of their particular land will allow them to produce food that is brought by far more people especially when the price of it is very low because they are no longer paying the very high land rent price.

Your total avoidance of economics is astounding.
Click to expand...

Dude!!... you don't know what you are talking about. If prices drop significantly the family farms will be the first to go out of business. It is the big industrial farming operations that can grow the most crops for the least cost. And most family farms own their land so a drop in land prices doesn't really help anyone except for the corporations who want to buy it all up.

Your complete ignorance of the economics of farming is astounding.
 
Family farms....

Aren’t really a thing anymore.

I mean, sure, most are owned by families, but they’re leased out to larger farmers, who I guess DO have families, but are mostly guys with leases on expensive tractors and harvesters.
 
Buzz said:
https://texasfarmbureau.org/percent-of-us-farms-are-familyowned/
Click to expand...

About half is leased or rented, and its not like it used to be with dad, mom and the kids all raising crops and cattle and pigs and chickens. Essentially, half of all farms today are owned by landlords, although they proudly call themselves ‘farm families’.

The farms - at least on the most productive lands, are completely turned over to monoculture, and in the Midwest that means corn and soybeans.

Most of the land is passed down in the family, and some havent had a farmer in a generation or two in the family.

You’ll find lots of articles denying this, especially from farm organizations. The myth of the family farm is a strong enticement to keep the subsidy money flowing in to the landowners.

Read a bit of Sarah Taber. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...e-idea-of-family-farms-thats-unfortunate.html
 
Threegoofs said:
About half is leased or rented, and its not like it used to be with dad, mom and the kids all raising crops and cattle and pigs and chickens. Essentially, half of all farms today are owned by landlords, although they proudly call themselves ‘farm families’.
Click to expand...

And most of that leased or rented land is leased or rented to other family farms. I live in Nebraska and have lots of family, friends, and acquaintances that are farmers or ranchers and know about how this is a common thing to do nowadays.

Threegoofs said:
The farms - at least on the most productive lands, are completely turned over to monoculture, and in the Midwest that means corn and soybeans.
Click to expand...

Yup... and if the price of corn and soybeans were to drop significantly as Tim thinks would be good a lot of lands would suddenly become less profitable to farm no matter if it is family-owned or not.

Threegoofs said:
Most of the land is passed down in the family, and some havent had a farmer in a generation or two in the family.
Click to expand...

True... but again, most of these lands are still being farmed by other family farms.

Threegoofs said:
You’ll find lots of articles denying this, especially from farm organizations. The myth of the family farm is a strong enticement to keep the subsidy money flowing in to the landowners.
Click to expand...

And I don't disagree. But I will have to admit some bias toward family farms with all of them that I know. And I would rather have this country's farmland in the hands of families instead of the corporations.

Threegoofs said:
Read a bit of Sarah Taber. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...e-idea-of-family-farms-thats-unfortunate.html
Click to expand...

Very interesting article with many very good points.
 
Threegoofs said:
About half is leased or rented, and its not like it used to be with dad, mom and the kids all raising crops and cattle and pigs and chickens. Essentially, half of all farms today are owned by landlords, although they proudly call themselves ‘farm families’.

The farms - at least on the most productive lands, are completely turned over to monoculture, and in the Midwest that means corn and soybeans.

Most of the land is passed down in the family, and some havent had a farmer in a generation or two in the family.

You’ll find lots of articles denying this, especially from farm organizations. The myth of the family farm is a strong enticement to keep the subsidy money flowing in to the landowners.

Read a bit of Sarah Taber. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...e-idea-of-family-farms-thats-unfortunate.html
Click to expand...
For once I agree with you. Just thought that deserved a special comment.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Wrong.

Still massive numbers die of poverty and hunger.

If the price was allowed to fall to where it should be, free market economics, then millions less would die each year. Billions would see massive economic growth at a rate that would make China look like a snail not a tiger. The whole world would boom with new markets for all our goods from technology to whisky.

The only "loosers" would be millionair land owners who would see less income for a few years untill the wealth of the world got to be so much more than now. The they would be better off.
Click to expand...
You know you're not even close to being correct on this topic. It isn't the basic cost of grains that's the problem. It is the storage, processing and transport which often makes it too expensive for the poor countries. For instance, new environmental laws have caused the cost of drying grain to skyrocket in Canada. This has a ripple effect throughout the food chain; more expensive feed for animals like chickens, cattle, more expensive eggs. The actual cost of the grain in that $5 box of breakfast cereal is around 10 cents.
 
Waddy said:
You know you're not even close to being correct on this topic. It isn't the basic cost of grains that's the problem. It is the storage, processing and transport which often makes it too expensive for the poor countries. For instance, new environmental laws have caused the cost of drying grain to skyrocket in Canada. This has a ripple effect throughout the food chain; more expensive feed for animals like chickens, cattle, more expensive eggs. The actual cost of the grain in that $5 box of breakfast cereal is around 10 cents.
Click to expand...
There are lots of mechanisms which cause the price of food to be much higher than it should be.

They all add to human death and suffering.

I don't know the details of the dyring grian thing, please elaborate.
 
Tim the plumber said:
There are lots of mechanisms which cause the price of food to be much higher than it should be.

They all add to human death and suffering.

I don't know the details of the dyring grian thing, please elaborate.
Click to expand...
If you look at it historically, food is cheap. People eat better than ever. My point is the actual cost of grain is minimal; it's everything that comes after that raises the cost of food. A steer might bring $400 at wholesale auction. That steer is worth $4000 sitting in the grocery store meat department waiting for someone to buy it piece by piece, or rather, cut by cut.

A little over a century ago people asked, "what do we have to eat?". Today we ask, "What do we want to eat?".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom