The Global Farmland Rush: dark side of capitalism, chapt. 34 - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kerry · #16 02-10-2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skippy

When I lived back east, I always used to see a lot of land not being put to any apparent use that looked like it would make good farm or pasture land. No one did anything to it and it was naturally green, so you could grow something useful on it, right?

Here, what little land is good for farming gets used for farming. BLM owns a lot of land that is ok for low intensity cattle or sheep grazing, but not much else. I'd like to see BLM give up a lot of that land in favor of state or local control or (gasp

) private ownership.

Lots of BLM land is leased out for grazing. See the book, Sacred Cows at the Public Trough.

cmac2012 · #17 02-10-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Very true but every effort seems to revolve around making it more so that way. The smaller family farm if not totally dead seems close to it. Certainly the current structure does not cater to it in any way I see. Farmers were never able to properly organise. Still the middle man ground in the food supply chain was taken over by concerns that became very wealthy commercial giants.

There should be a way enable small farms to survive properly in some fashion. Our food in north america is very cheap at this time in relation to average earnings.

There may not be or almost certainly will not be the amount of industrial employment there once was in north america. You would think people would be better off on smaller farms than sitting in larger built up areas on some form of public assistance. This growth area to me is overall socially destructive.

There are hundreds of acres of farmland on three sides of our home producing absolutely nothing now. Even if just planted in potatoes for example should be able to keep one family going if the marketing system for them were a level playing field. Currently it is my belief the farmer only gets a very small portion of the retail pricing. Too small to make it practical to produce moderate amounts of product currently.

I heard a radio interview with a wheat farmer some years back - he claimed that if loaves of bread were sold for a penny more and that penny went directly to farmers it would double their income. I can understand the need for middlemen, processors, bakers, distributors, etc. but it doesn't strike me as prudent to undervalue the source of the item.

Corporate farming did result in greater profit but it has often been at the expense of soil health. Large corporate farms generally are not as in tuned in to the overall health of the land as a small farmer is. So the profit comes at the expense of the capital to some degree. The illusion of profit.

And it's getting worse, not better IMO. I read a remark from one farmer regarding growing corn for ethanol: seems like we're putting the last 8 inches of topsoil on the great plains into our gas tanks.

Botnst · #18 02-10-2013, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Money is an imperfect instrument. Not everything can be accurately reduced to monetary value or profit.

Then curse the darkness.

Botnst · #19 02-10-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Very true but every effort seems to revolve around making it more so that way. The smaller family farm if not totally dead seems close to it. Certainly the current structure does not cater to it in any way I see. Farmers were never able to properly organise. Still the middle man ground in the food supply chain was taken over by concerns that became very wealthy commercial giants.

There should be a way enable small farms to survive properly in some fashion. Our food in north america is very cheap at this time in relation to average earnings.

There may not be or almost certainly wil not be the amount of indusrial employment there once was in north america. You would think people would be better off on smaller farms than sitting in larger built up areas on some form of public assistance. This growth area to me is overall socially destructive.

There are hundreds of acres of farmland on three sides of our home producing absolutly nothing now. Even if just planted in potatoes for example should be able to keep one family going if the marketing system for them were a level playing field. Currently it is my belief the farmer only gets a very small portion of the retail pricing. Too small to make it practical to produce moderate amounts of product currently.

Facts are what they are. We all lament the good things that are lost and forget the bad things that once were. I guess it's human nature.

This fall I broke new ground in an old hay meadow to plant a new addition to the garden so I can rotate in 4 steps. Ideally, I would be totally organic and never touch a pesticide and use no chemical fertilizer. Practically, that's fooking crazy. So I accommodate. I herbicided the former hay meadow and have disked it several times. I see no bahia rhizomes growing while outside of the disked area the grass is beginning to grow. The strips where I will put the electric fence (I guess I could feed the coons and deer and rabbits ... no thanks) I disked but did not herbicide. Rhizomes are sending up fresh leaves. Herbicide made the difference. It is my good fortune that the power company cleared their r.o.w. and chipped the slash. I have two giant piles of mulch, which I will use around some of the plants but it is totally impractical to mulch corn, peas, beans, and potatoes. I'll mulch those things that are accessible and practical and cultivate the rest.

There is no way I could feed my family and sell enough veggies to turn a profit. So I stay small scale and grow what I can of my own.

Or I could curse the darkness.

cmac2012 · #20 02-10-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Then curse the darkness.

Good Lord. Most all things are in a state of flux. Our education is ongoing.

And cryptic does not equal profound.

Benz Dr. · #21 02-10-2013, 03:43 PM

Too bad most of this stuff isn't true. Corn for ethanol, small farmers - under 100 acres are better at what they do, farm land is being used up...... yeah, sure.

MTUpower · #22 02-10-2013, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Very true but every effort seems to revolve around making it more so that way. The smaller family farm if not totally dead seems close to it. Certainly the current structure does not cater to it in any way I see. Farmers were never able to properly organise. Still the middle man ground in the food supply chain was taken over by concerns that became very wealthy commercial giants.

There should be a way enable small farms to survive properly in some fashion. Our food in north america is very cheap at this time in relation to average earnings.

There may not be or almost certainly wil not be the amount of indusrial employment there once was in north america. You would think people would be better off on smaller farms than sitting in larger built up areas on some form of public assistance. This growth area to me is overall socially destructive.

There are hundreds of acres of farmland on three sides of our home producing absolutly nothing now. Even if just planted in potatoes for example should be able to keep one family going if the marketing system for them were a level playing field. Currently it is my belief the farmer only gets a very small portion of the retail pricing. Too small to make it practical to produce moderate amounts of product currently.

If you figure out how to change that without costing the rest of us money out of our pocket let us know.

dlssmith · #23 02-10-2013, 11:07 PM

There is little doubt that the operators of those "farms" in Africa, South America or Asia will turn a profit, unless they are underwritten by governments, of course.

chilcutt · #24 02-11-2013, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Money is an imperfect instrument. Not everything can be accurately reduced to monetary value or profit.

I prefer a banking system with a wholly differant 'philosophy' from the conventional western outlook of finance.

For instance : Money is a simple means of exchange and not an assett, and therefore should not grow over time.
Money should be used for a proper economic purpose and not treated as a commodity on which return can be made by referance to time.

The purpose of these measures of course is to prevent exploitation from the use of money and to share profits and loss.

cmac2012 · #25 02-11-2013, 11:47 AM

One of the more graphic examples of the folly of placing monetary profit on a pedestal is the business of ocean bottom trawling. The practice does indeed result in large catches, i.e. large profits. However, it also disrupts and damages the sea floor, where a lot of nursery action of newborn critters takes place. Over the long haul, catch will be reduced, not increased.

Groundwater and topsoil are gradually being used up. Various attempts to extract more production often result in greater soil erosion. That's why nations with money are buying up land wherever they can.

cmbdiesel · #26 02-11-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R Leo

What is a "tall boy?"

What I want to know is how many of these things is Larry drinking...

1/4 mil seems like quite a few...

cmbdiesel · #27 02-11-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Find a way to make family farming more profitable.

Prices at the grocery store are trying.....

cmac2012 · #28 02-11-2013, 05:37 PM

Short term profit is not the same as long term profit. In today's market, short term profit is king. One can make more money in one year mining gold than in farming in the surrounding land immediately affected by the mining's toxic runoff. Over 50 years though, I suspect the balance would tip to farming. But them that worship immediate wealth are not concerned with such things.

A good example of that can be seen in Southern Baja. The mountains down there are the source of the water for everyone in the area yet a few gold mining ambitions in those mountains will not go away. One village has had its groundwater ruined already. The govt. is schizo on the deal. On the one hand they're investing in good roads to attract the tourist dollar, on the other hand they like the promise of gold money.

All hail the God of profit.

barry12345 · #29 02-11-2013, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

If you figure out how to change that without costing the rest of us money out of our pocket let us know.

In our current system it is not going to happen. Longer term food may become very expensive when a much larger proportion of food production than now becomes corporate farming. Monopoly of segments of the economy even if illegal is still a growth thing.

Botnst · #30 02-11-2013, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Good Lord. Most all things are in a state of flux. Our education is ongoing.

And cryptic does not equal profound.

"Profit is made from increasing efficiencies."

That's a plain fact, not a moral judgement. That you find it inadequate is a moral judgement, not a fact. That you offer no solution but decry what you perceive as inadequate is cursing the darkness instead of lighting a lamp.

Go light the lamp or continue to curse the darkness in frustration, blaming it on 'the man'.

No lamp around? Invent a better source. Or whine.