3 ms·

You're right, from an economic standpoint, at least on the surface. But what of the social and ecological benefits of keeping alive small communities and small

You're right, from an economic standpoint, at least on the surface. But what of the social and ecological benefits of keeping alive small communities and small fields with diverse crops? The problems with large-scale monoculture farming are well known. A counter-argument is that food is too cheap. That obviously doesn't feel correct for someone struggling to pay the bills each month, but still... Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out.

jkepler 3y ago
> Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out. This seems to have all started when we turned the dollar into a melting iceberg jn 1913 (created the Federal Reserve, which is basicaly a cabal of private banksters with a veneer of government), and it intensified when we decided to make dollars our primary national export product in 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold convertibility window for foreign central banks). Since then, workers are squeezed for working hard and trying to save for the future, but not understanding that if they're saying in dollars they'll never get ahead. My guess specific to farming is that federal subsidies for corn and energy have driven prices up in ways that price smaller-scale farms out of the market.
- koheripbal 3y ago
  This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics
  - Akronymus 3y ago
    Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?
    - tomrod 3y ago
      First, a typo "jn" for in. Second, the Federal Reserve is not a cabal, let alone a shadowy one. Third, it's existence is to ameliorate recessions. Your great-great grandparents, if in the US at the time, were very much in favor of it. Fourth, the US doesn't allow for sovereign banks, so a private Federal Reserve is already the classical liberal/libertarian solution (anarcho-capitalists are typically the ones calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve/returning to commodity as a standard). Fifth, a lender of last resort is a fantastic backstop allowing more investment and risk taking, which has pushed the US' investment dominance for over a century.
- Arn_Thor 3y ago
  If you look at the US’s richest (or the world’s for that matter) they’re not usually bankers, which raises a few questions about your hypothesis
- eigenmeister 3y ago
  Federal subsidies may contribute, but average farm size has increased, and employment decreased, over a much longer scale - century plus - than any farm program I'm aware of. It's a massive secular trend longer than the monetary items mentioned as well. Technology/automation is a commonly cited cause, although in this context you'll see references to mechanization.

jkepler 3y ago

> Workers are being squeezed on one end and small farmers are being squeezed on the other, and the gains go somewhere else entirely while small communities fall into despair and die out. This seems to have all started when we turned the dollar into a melting iceberg jn 1913 (created the Federal Reserve, which is basicaly a cabal of private banksters with a veneer of government), and it intensified when we decided to make dollars our primary national export product in 1971 (when Nixon closed the gold convertibility window for foreign central banks). Since then, workers are squeezed for working hard and trying to save for the future, but not understanding that if they're saying in dollars they'll never get ahead. My guess specific to farming is that federal subsidies for corn and energy have driven prices up in ways that price smaller-scale farms out of the market.

koheripbal 3y ago
This comment has a very biased tone and lacks an understanding of basic economics
- Akronymus 3y ago
  Could you elaborate on how it is wrong?
  - tomrod 3y ago
    First, a typo "jn" for in. Second, the Federal Reserve is not a cabal, let alone a shadowy one. Third, it's existence is to ameliorate recessions. Your great-great grandparents, if in the US at the time, were very much in favor of it. Fourth, the US doesn't allow for sovereign banks, so a private Federal Reserve is already the classical liberal/libertarian solution (anarcho-capitalists are typically the ones calling for abolishing the Federal Reserve/returning to commodity as a standard). Fifth, a lender of last resort is a fantastic backstop allowing more investment and risk taking, which has pushed the US' investment dominance for over a century.
Arn_Thor 3y ago
If you look at the US’s richest (or the world’s for that matter) they’re not usually bankers, which raises a few questions about your hypothesis
eigenmeister 3y ago
Federal subsidies may contribute, but average farm size has increased, and employment decreased, over a much longer scale - century plus - than any farm program I'm aware of. It's a massive secular trend longer than the monetary items mentioned as well. Technology/automation is a commonly cited cause, although in this context you'll see references to mechanization.