Why do American farmers love pushing the big red "destroy me" button

[EnglishEdward]

In my experience people, whether farmers or not, are always complaining about their government.

Except in places where it gets you shot.

Any government policy, or even its absence, typically results in winners and losers.
The losers typically complain while the winners typically attribute gains to their own efforts.

So there is almost always a list of ongoing complaints anyway. And complaints about the current
administration, that happens to be republican, do not prove the current government is worse.

By the way, I suspect that the current administration is worse, but that is merely a theory.
However the opening post was based upon that assumption that has yet to be proven true.

And @ Amadeus is correct to point that about.

I will also make the point that many farmers are wealthy and likely benefit from tax breaks
and lax enforcement of many agricultural, food safety and labour related regulations.
As such they might favour the republicans. And ICE deporting their labour force
is very double edged. The wealthy farmers might not like ICE swooping down on them
and deporting a hardworking skilled workforce, but I suspect that many would be happy
to use the threat of calling in ICE to deal with workers complaining about not being paid.

As to rhetoric, I doubt you are seeking an informed debate, merely for others agreeing with you.

 

[Angst]

As to rhetoric, I doubt you are seeking an informed debate, merely for others agreeing with you.

alright, so just before i clean my hands off this exchange, i'm going to outline why you're not worth engaging with.

However the opening post was based upon that assumption that has yet to be proven true.

so: this isn't a good look. i just gave you a few quick links. like just did. this is why you answered without quoting the post lmao. it's why you so often don't do that, for that matter.

your behavior has been to say something wrong, that was then answered to be wrong, you move goalpoasts until you fail, disappear from the thread when unable to answer properly, to drop in again sidewise into another exchange and say something wrong again somewhere else. repeat. at no point, even when answered, do you consider a presented position. it's pure rhetoric.

for this particular exchange, i outlined a position, you went source?, i give sources, and you, in your answer to those sources, you say i don't provide them & do a no u. so, pure rhetoric.

you're the kind of person who thinks the Other never changes its mind. they change their mind all the time - i know plenty well enough to know this - you just don't see it yourself because your method of engagement is... this. sadly, people are smarter than that. it's all your exes that are crazy.

so - i felt i owed you an explanation before the point: i'm not gonna bother with it anymore.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Nothing. The GOP control Congress and the presidency and Johnson has kept the House out of session for two months to avoid voting on anything.

OK

Let me change my question from present to future tense.

What will the Democrats be promising the farmers in their campaign to win the mid term elections ?

 

[warpus]

if us farmers hate corporate cartel mergers, hate tariffs, hate having their foreign workers expulsed, and hate socialism - why do they mostly vote for the party that pushes for corporate consolidation, that establishes tariffs esp on export targets, that detains their workers, and hand drips them socialism in grants (all coming from the horse's mouth, mindedly, including that they want socialist government subsidies)

Because farmers tend to be more conservative in various ways, so they tend to favour the party that promises a conservative approach to matters.

It doesn't matter that these might be lies or poorly implemented at best, it doesn't matter that the results don't pan out. Most people don't have the time to sit down and analyze the political and non-political gears that make their society work the way it does. They've been told that politics is a team sport, and one of the main 2 parties is advertising itself as Farmers FC. So they look around and all their farmer friends are voting for this party, the party spends money to advertise in rural parts of the country, the other party seems to be clearly designed to benefit the weirdos who live and work in cities, so obviously a lot of farmers vote for the rural-leaning party.

Even if like 2 farmers stop and say "Hey wait a second, the last 78 conservative candidates actually made things worse", that doesn't matter, because the TV will say "The bad things happening is because of the other party and refugees who will turn your pet hamster into a hamster milkshake and slurp it down while spitting on the American flag"

 

[GenMarshall]

These cultural battles are kind of past my concern

...as all things should be.

anyways. the thing is that i want to be an ally to the plight of the farmer. but i literally can't take their material situation seriously if they keep voting like this. i just can't. it's just a big fat small violin. these are their own material values, they define them to be good, and then keep destroying their own livinghood by their own logic of good organization. deliberately, willingly, awarely. stop burning your own house down, i say, and they can be taken seriously.

I think I have a much different experience with farmers here in New England as we mostly have dairy farms and most are family owned and specialty crops (fruits and vegetables) for local consumption at the farmer's market and local "pick-your-own" sales (e.g. the locals head to Bob's Apple Farm to pick their own apples). Though it may be surprising that we do have tobacco farms in the region. In general, I haven't heard any disgruntled views from New England farmers (or likely vent them in a local newspaper's editorial/option column). Most of the noise, at least from what I've seen, mainly comes from the bread basket region of the US where farms are typically larger corporate entities (Compared to farms in New England which are at average around 50 acres, Breadbasket farms tend to be very larger with a rich soil), in contrast with smaller family run/small business/Sole Proprietorships model in New England.

Even I'm going on and off again as to "why" this happened (for US Farmer's in general) for the preference for Trump despite his scandals, legal issues, and his personality and demeanor would be a turn off for anyone who has standards. Ultimately, I've drawn down to a few reasonings: economic factors that relate to input costs and inflation, the trade policies and holding onto hope that tariffs would "level the playing field" for domestic producers (as demonstrated in Trump's Second Term, did more harm than good as we've observed), and felt that climate and environmental policies are costly and a burden. Of course, we can't ignore the elephant in the room that rural communities have a distrust of mainstream narratives.

I've made mention earlier on the "politics of spite". While it's drawing from my own anecdotal experiences (Mine's was more rooted in popular culture) and not to the same extent as a farmer of the midwest's psychology. I theorized that its likely down to feelings of having their views and concerns (were not talking about hot button topics revolving around the current culture war) are invalidated and dismissed by, what they precive, as out of touch liberal coastal elites. The classic Rural/Urban divide. An explanation (abet simplified) was best done by YouTuber Mr. Beat as he did a video on The American Urban/Rural Political Divide.

Just a note, this is just a working theory on my part that I'm actively molding and sculpting that's based on my observations

I should add that the voting behavior in denmark at least makes sense. they vote for the same appx political wing, which is fully concerned with making sure farming is as economically sustainable as possible. this is part of the big urban snootiness thing. there are other real issues there (you can't grow wheat underwater), but at least their politics of spite aren't as pronounced - yet. the danish right has been very invested in how the right does it in the us, and small parties have shown up capitalizing on the supposed rural-urban divide.

Lately, I've been intrigued on how the SocDems in Denmark are tackling this issue. Though I have my doubts the US Democratic party would pick up on the lessons to make US Farmers more content than willing to burn the house down "with the lemons".

 

[Angst]

Lately, I've been intrigued on how the SocDems in Denmark are tackling this issue. Though I have my doubts the US Democratic party would pick up on the lessons to make US Farmers more content than willing to burn the house down "with the lemons".

i read the rest of your post and find the input useful, just didn't have much to say to it save some stuff i covered elsewhere in the thread. but i wanted to make a short input on danish social democracy now that you've noted that you're intrigued.

social democracy is well and alive in denmark, however you won't find it with the social democrats, the party named as such. they're so in name only. set aside immigration policy, where denmark is heavily criticized - socdems are spearheading it because they lost voters to the insane danish people's party - they have become a material party of the upper middle class, pushing for austerity and mostly working with the right. it was formalized after the latest national election where they formed a coalition with the political "middle" (mostly right), importantly with the other big party that was renowed for being the big right wing party that likes making spending cuts. although the big right wing party is technically a moderate right wing party, just used to be the frontrunner of the whole right wing; whenever a coalition formed on the left, socdems got the prime minister post, when it formed along the right, the right wing party in question got the post. oh and because denmark likes to keep things simple, they right wing party is confusedly named Venstre, that is, literally "Left". it's because they used to be the liberal opposition to the conservatives that, back then, were postfeudal royalists; "the Right".).

so anyways, the social democrats formed a centre coalition with their old enemies and did austerity politics. took quite a few of their voters by shock, whole base felt betrayed, but it wasn't surprising to anyone that had paid attention to their political behavior the 20 years leading up to that. when they got the prime minister post as the leader of the left wing coalition since the 00s, they would 90% of the time just vote with the right and do austerity politics. they remain the largest party, but it's grandfathered support. most of their voters are economically left, but aren't particularly politically engaged, so they keep voting for the same party over and over, and keep getting outraged when austerity stuff happens. incidentally, it quite aligns with the farmer behavior noted in this thread, where in denmark at least, Venstre actually keeps its promises to its constituents (Venstre has a huge farmer constituency and is basically farmer first when possible, in real, material ways - not the madness we see in the states).

social democrats (as in, again, the named party) was the primary force that made danish unions so strong, they used to be a huge worker party, built up the welfare state and the prosperity of denmark, and such. but they finally cut ties with unions formally in the 00s i think, sometime around that, some time after brutally destroying a nurse union strike that simply asked for salaries to keep up with inflation. one incident of many, but sets the tone. social democrats is currently advertising elderly care in particular, which i think is the only social field that they still try to maintain. beyond that, they have actively gutted all social subsidies and key democratic institutions like the state media and the universities. the thing they make sure we get in return is tax cuts for the wealthy, better private school options and such.

so, yea.

social democrats (as in them that are, not the party) are still reasonably popular and hold a significant voter base. it's just not formalized. the left is a bit of a mess after neoliberalism (if you think clinton post reagan and new labour after thatcher, the social democratic party underwent the same transformation). there was a viral video of our prime minister (who's of the social democrat party) where the format is A or B, and then she'd pick what she'd push for. she'd start with banning tiktok for people below 18 or something, and she was presented B options in general welfare, eldercare, preschooling, social housing, healthcare, school funding, social subsidies... until "less immigration" came up and she switched to that being the big priority. and i can't particularly translate it well, but basically her phrasing of the situation is that the young brown men were too rowdy and needed to be thrown out. it's hard to get across, but it was the standard bag-clutching behavior when seeing some kids hang out when you ride the bus. naughty brown teenagers then held for a bit until the interviewer asked her whether she prefered that as a central priority or preserving f greenland, and she found the question rude and wouldn't answer.

our prime minister is often excellent in foreign policy, truly is. what she did with ukraine was good. but lacking of a better phrasing, the shorthand works; it was pure boomer. disregard her age. internet is scary. the party is also a big reason digital privacy is getting destroyed in europe. she loves her surveillance and either thinks or pretends it's for the kids because internet scary

note that most of the latter doesn't have much to do with eg tax policy, but that's kind of the point. their economic policy now is vague austerity carried with political advertising for what they used to do. they get social democratic votes so they can make cuts with the right. what they then actually care about irt cultural signifiers is like kids spending too much on tiktok and brown kids being loud in the mall. there's a very specific kind of voter who finds that stuff compelling. and it's not the enfranchised one. when a real political question then shows up (greenland) it's hard to choose between that and making sure not too many flee from social democrats to the danish people's party (who have started talking remigration). the thing is that the social democrats are losing the poor vote except what they can guardrail as to being tough on immigration.*

social democrats are a husk that means nothing and are sustained solely through voters with a short memory that don't pay attention (or are too old to change their behavior because learning that things changed is difficult when you're 60+). doesn't mean you shouldn't take thinkpieces about them into consideration. just take it with a grain of salt if you're reading about their political behavior post 00s. my guess is you'd be more inclined to support these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Left_(Denmark) - don't let the fact that they're called socialist people's party spook you. danish party names are soup. our big right wing party is called left, social democrats is a right wing austerity party in a left wing trenchcoat. other party names... liberal alliance are libertarians, social liberals are appropriately named but the literal translation of their danish name is RADICAL LEFT lol. the latter is right wing economically and are a lot similar to us democrats, except looser on immigration. New Right is another party whose most accurate translation into english would be New Bourgoise, and their racism would be too much for you. you can't make this stuff up.

edit: completely forgot to note: social democrats (the party) doesn't have farmers as a primary concern, not even in signaling. they're instrumental for the subsidies ofc. but it's simply not their base. that would be Venstre.


*sidenote on this because i know you had some musings on this in the immigration thread. even if you want to be tough on immigration, at this point further toughness is ridiculous. all social problems we have with migrants are gens 2-3 onwards, and it's been made really f hard to get a danish citizenship - i have numerous people in my life who are migrants, including an american with dual eu citizenship, who'd you think would have it easy, but no. it's not. so when social democrats talk about being tough on immigration at this point, it's like putting another fence in front of a five-layered steel wall. it's pure voter bait

 

[Farm Boy]

farmers were some of the first in the civilian market to get on board with GPS because they wanted their crops taking up every square inch of their property allowable that the technology could map.

Came for the poem, but this isn't the correct logic. We still manually steer everything and you can run up to your edges just fine without GPS. But the edges aren't the important bit. It's about accuracy, so really sort of the opposite in practice of this reasoning. A GPS tractor can put in straighter rows than I can, even though I'm pretty good at this point. Driving all day gets pretty exhausting. It's bumpy, you're climbing up and down all day punctuated by heavy lifting, and you're constantly swiveling to see if anything on the equipment has malfunctioned. Your tolerance for drift is really not a lot more than 3-5 inches or it starts creating problems. Let's take planting for instance. You want the rows spaced evenly, but just as important you want them straight as you can get them. After planting, in a typical year, we have two more ground passes to complete through the then growing crop. If the rows swerve during planting, they're likely to going to get run over or removed during the following passes. So inaccurate driving on any of those passes creates waste and loss. Also, if you have rows that you need to put in that don't meet perfectly square with every pass of your, say, planter(usually at least 20' wide), you'll need to put in point rows where some rows on the planter either get turned off when they meet the ones you've already put in, or you overplant in overlapping rows(that will get run over and removed later), or you leave a gap. A farmer I know joked that when he put in digital shutoffs to each of his planter rows linked to his GPS, he shrunk all his fields by a couple acres(so less waste in overplants because of the point rows. Probably takes somewhere in the range of 5 or 6 years to pay that back single instance of equipment costs in reduced input costs, but it's good to be efficient where you can). Also, if the field is soil sampled(which it should be) you can link that map to a GPS enabled fertilizer cart than can then apply inputs at a variable rate, getting everything just right just where it needs it rather than overapplying inputs at a field-wide heavy blanket rate.

The fascination with fencerow-to-fencerow farming comes from the political era of Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon, and the Russian grain embargo. Sometimes the political memory lives long.

the bread basket region of the US where farms are typically larger corporate entities

They really aren't*. There are some and they take up a lot of room. But they're not all that efficient in a lot of operational ways, their chief advantages come from favorable deals in finance. Smaller farms will typically hire out either corporate or co-op services for the portions of their operations that have been outscaled. So if one is driving by and doesn't know much, it does look that way.

*livestock is an entirely different can of worms.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To this day, I remember the picture you posted from behind the wheel of the tractor your father had driven for so many years.

 

[r16]

basically ı had saved up some money and brother noticed there were newer models of my tablet . Bought one , keeping the second , struggling a bit , too . This being the first post written with the new one ...

more confusion . What do ı say ? Are villagers bad ? Are villagers good ? Like not for those who have up their minds here but hey , the world is bigger than CFC ...

for the specific case of my country , villagers are why the country exists . And the nation exists . There will be those who feel these are bad things but yeah , it was the villagers who took the brunt of the Great War , doing quite a bit for the thing to last 4 years and the Great Powers ending bankrupt in more than one sense of the word . Meaning all those peace time fixes of old sins by massacres when the press was not looking on had to be subcontracted to the Greeks . Mobilizing for that part took a bit of time indeed but it was done and the villagers did not quite object to the Republic either , if one is prepared to ignore propaganda lies . One good thing to keep in mind . Anyone who says Atatürk was a British spy is a British spy .

nationalism is bad , foreigners will tell you . Yeah , Nationalism was like invented for the villagers who outnumbered urban population for most of the history . When the French overthrew their nobles and like ended up with an Emperor or something . They created massive armies and fought the rest of Europe to a standstill . Other countries had to match mass conscription and with religion like shared across many borders , there had to new distinctions . So that you could order your farmers who would have ignored military as a career choice or whatever to their deaths . This is relevant to the discussion in this particular thread like somewhat because there was going to be a global warming , our country among those to become hot enough to be a desert from one end to the other and places due North becoming so nice and we should have had joined them when we had the chance . People here in CFC are like maybe fighting over why they shouldn't bother with one single farmer because the farmers do not know what's best for them and the battlelines should be clear and no quarters given . Because Russian farmers , who are not exactly the best specimens of Mankind or whatever agreed to die for Mother Russia . Which was welcomed by the West , like easier to kill them in Ukraine than searching for them individually in the East of Urals . Though Ukraine's fate was sealed on the day the Polish General Staff figured out that their in-country forces would meet undisclosed Russian weapons and whatnot in heavy enough attrition to prevent them taking advantage of the inevitable disasters that would fall upon Kiev with Victory . With the sharing of glory and loot ; trouble to ensue . Basically the Poles are heavily arming not (just) against Russians but certain Asian or whatever countries . Like they too have read some Friedman book that postulates we , of all people , be fighting them over the tablescraps after Russia falls . Being somewhat racist and keeping it under control they would laugh at any challenge we could throw at them . More concerned about what would happen when we were destroyed in the name of Israel . Oh yeah , somebody is plotting for vengeance for Holocaust and the attempts against it , like saying more Poles were killed by Nazis ... lf only we could take the country out of the way so that everybody could realize their fantasies .

confused ? Don't be . For the necessary jobs of cleansing all those millions of squares of kilometers the Poles are building up their army . Europeans invited all sorts of refugees who would do the job in return for citizenship , except the refugees are already raping anyone they like and walking out of courtrooms , happy ... Americans are changing their entire way of international relationships , ready to actually invade places like Greenland or acting up like that to scare people enough to pay tribute for peace . This country has survived multiple plots , because of the disaster looming for the West . You might have heard of the stuff about intentionally enraging or whatever the people , with the Peace thing going on and giving away the country , because fighting is bad when people fire on you , instead of you like massacring them joyously without a scratch . And when angry , people look for leaders and you can stab the leaders in the back ... And all the Syrians they have brought in to fight claim they are loyal to the plan with each couple having 5 children or whatever . These are why local Americans are like explaining why they do not move out to crush the common enemy as they are prodded on by the locals . Like because it is clear we WILL not bother to convince the country to fight for common goals or whatever and directly start with Western Military power . Ukraine is a disaster , let me tell you , with things they are bragging of doing to Russians can happen to the Westerners with utmost ease .

you are brainwashed everyday or something . You don't have enemies in the society . You don't need to make lists of whom to remove from the scene . Yes , there are people doing these things . Willing evil on anything related to Turks . Let them meet professionals . There are good people . There are bad people . Pay attention to traps , act like nobody means harm . That's all . Talking is the way , for those who are set to talk . Even when 10 people will reject , there is still the 11th . Those who are set to talk won't be insulting everybody to turn away the 11th .

 

[r16]

just in ... Worst agricultural output since 2001 , down 12,7% from last year . Average farmer age in Turkey is 57 and yes , ı would trust them to vote A-K-P . Once massive demonstrations in hazelnut areas in the years past , unhappy with Goverment offered prices and in the next elections solid wins for the Party . 70% of the global output is from this country and Berlusconi was PM's best pal during the years Italian companies were reportedly planting more and more ... While our farmers were hearing they should abandon and do something else with the fields . Or something , am not exactly sure about that . Whether happened that way or not . Yeah , global warming apparently keeps our market share ...

 

[Ajidica]

The fascination with fencerow-to-fencerow farming comes from the political era of Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon, and the Russian grain embargo. Sometimes the political memory lives long.

I know about Earl Butz - a guy so racist even Nixon was forced to fire him - but the Russian Grain Embargo? Didn't that contribute to the early 80s farm crisis by being a hard 180 degree turn on the overproduction encouraged by the USDA, various farmer welfare programs, and the Soviet "Great Grain Robbery"?

 

[amadeus]

I’m also curious as to what the effect of the 1980 embargo was because my limited understanding of it was that it depressed American grain prices, and it didn’t get the Soviets out of Afghanistan either—they got the grain from Canada and Argentina.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

may be related news:

Trump says $12 billion bailout plan for farmers will come from tariff revenue

President Donald Trump announced a $12 billion aid package for American farmers on Monday, a White House official confirmed to ABC News.

abcnews.go.com

President Donald Trump announced a total $12 billion in funding to help American farmers during an event on Monday, and said that it would come from tariff revenue.

"I'm delighted to announce this afternoon that the United States will be taking a small portion of the hundreds of billions of dollars we receive in tariffs. ... and we're going to be giving and providing it to the farmers in economic assistance. And we love our farmers," the president said.

The package includes $11 billion in one-time payments to crop farmers through a new Department of Agriculture bridge payment program. The remaining funds will then go to other crops not covered by that program.

Trump, in his first term, also took action to bail out American farmers. His administration approved two packages in 2018 and 2019 totaling $28 billion for farmers impacted by his economic policies.

I've no good explanation for the tc as to why any farmer would simultaneously support Trump's tariffs (if that's what their vote meant) yet also a bailout required because of said tariffs with money collected from them. Sounds terribly convoluted. But I do not think these are stupid people in terms of IQ; they know how to put a seed in the ground and watch it grow which is certainly more than I've ever done outside of maybe once in elementary school.
Perhaps there is an expectation from his closer/closest supporters like these that tariffs are essentially good because Trump is only using them strategically to eventually pay these people off (i.e. bribe them) one day like any stereotypical Tammany Hall-esque big-city politician might do. There may have calculated some sort-term loss, which will be counteracted by a future gain. It's just too bad the rest of us won't be getting such a break. Should've sucked up to Trump more I guess...

 

[Farm Boy]

To this day, I remember the picture you posted from behind the wheel of the tractor your father had driven for so many years.

Drives. Every spring is a blessing. If for no other reason than the man is a wicked amount smarter than I am.

Spoiler :

I know about Earl Butz - a guy so racist even Nixon was forced to fire him - but the Russian Grain Embargo? Didn't that contribute to the early 80s farm crisis by being a hard 180 degree turn on the overproduction encouraged by the USDA, various farmer welfare programs, and the Soviet "Great Grain Robbery"?

Earl himself was durable flashy with that tight "p****, loose shoes, and warm place to s***" quote(not that any of that sounds particularly bad, but it sounds bad enough to have lasted, eh?(and he did seem to be a prick in this way to boot)) but that's not really the point. The point is how fundamental problems in managing agriculture in a competent way so less people starve or go malnourished across geopolitical events, and just as important, across different administrations. I am not interested in debating politics particularly with any of you, but this is about what I understand of how things play(ed) out.

Agricultural output is variable, every year. Technology doesn't magically change that fact. Weather is variable, demand on the global market is variable, political disruptions to supply happen. Raw food products do not follow the standard supply/demand curves. It's one of the reasons food gets ommitted from a lot of inflation statistics, it's too volatile. When there is more than enough to eat, you can't just eat more like one can collect more gold, or stamps, or cars which will often relatively hold value or maybe even increase in value. Food will cost money to store and it will spoil(also one reason a physical bushel of corn is worth less than a fictional bushel of corn as traded by speculators on the Chicago Board of Trade(transportation reality being another(as I know you know!))). So the value of excess grains (relatively good to store compared to say, lettuce) once demand is filled doesn't just drop off, it goes negative, right? Rotting bins of soybeans aren't neutral, they're problems. So an unregulated market economy will saw back and forth between industry-decimating excesses and then shortages caused by business disruptions to the production chains. Which is then a problem with the other side of the supply/demand curve. Once you're short of food, it takes time to grow. Time that hungry people don't have. If there isn't excess production capacity primed and ready to go, it then takes time to even start the clock. Grasses are the only thing that can feed current human population levels. All of civilization rests upon domesticated grasses(and potatoes). So you really don't want this back and forth sawing that happens when the markets attempt to find equilibrium. So how does a people manage supply?

If we go back to the 1930s, the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, over supply was a problem, prices were too low and agriculture was failing. The number of options that a producer has to deal with low prices are limited. Produce more to make up for low unit price or shutter business; so basically the unmanaged problem gets worse and worse until things start collapsing(with the soil literally blowing away in this instance). So then, the government started stepping in for everyone's sake. The tool then was to destroy excess stores and cull excess herds, paying for the destruction and the culling. Basically, keeping production acreage in the system so that supply was always ready to be tweaked up in case of shortage(like would come in extremely stark terms in ~10 years) but getting rid of the oversupply that would happen from targeting too much production(waste) instead of too little production(hunger/famine). That basic method of control would eventually find form in programs like set aside acreage. Where the government would pay a subsidy to producers if they fallowed acreage, taking production land temporarily out while resting the soil with cover crops in order to sustain long term fertility. Expensive, and prone to corruption like every other government function since the subsidy levels need to be adjusted constantly in order to tweak production, storage, and fallowing levels. But better for the dirt and fertility than anything else I've ever seen read or suggested. Unfortunately, those programs are very susceptible to pithy political attack. "They're paying farmers not to farm." That line really says it all, it has made this management method into a political loser.

If we go forward into the 1970s, and the geopolitical realities of the Cold War, you start to find the other method of correcting market production of food high enough that shortfalls don't cause massive price spikes, and that's when the era of fencerow-to-fencerow farming begins. Maximal production of cash crops into the global market protects domestic supply while granting geopolitical clout. But what to do with the overproduction when there are no disruptions? Well, actively going out and burning fields and culling herds is unpopular, so there needs to be a useful way to have flexible sinks for the extra crops. Enter things like ethanol. You can turn extra food into fuel, thus maintaining artificially low food prices through subsidies, keeping extra production active so there aren't supply shocks, and when there is a supply shock or shortage, food can be redirected out of fuel and back into food. Since it was already produced, already in storage, and already on hand. This is also vulnerable to one of those pithy political one-liners. Once the price of food starts rising, people get angry about "burning food for fuel" and want the programs discontinued, not understanding that a principle reason that this is even an option instead of hunger in the first place was that we were already doing it.

The political interplay across administrations that makes farmers jaded in one specific way comes in when you track the high production of 1970s fencerow-to-fencerow production like Earl Butz called for in order to meet the Cold War needs and global shortages of the 1970s(remembering it takes years to rip out fields, change crops, change equipment and longer yet to accomplish paying to have done all these things) into the Carter administration years when the Russian Grain embargo over the invasion of Afghanistan then absolutely crushed American farmers on the market while doing relatively little harm to the Soviets in return. They get done reeling from that and the savings and loan crisis hits. Set aside programs get largely axed, starting under Carter again and then continuing on. The only really successful set aside projects I see recently are wetlands conservation along rivers and rewilding, those are vulnerable to the same political attacks as before, but pictures of ducks seem to help.

Edit: just noticed the Santa hat smilies. Merry Christmas, ya weirdos!