-
I want to thank all the members that have upgraded your accounts. I truly appreciate your support of the site monetarily. Supporting the site keeps this site up and running as a lot of work daily goes on behind the scenes. Click to Support Signs101 ...
Soy Bean Farmers
- Thread starter John Miller
- Start date
John Miller
Some day everything gonna be different.... when I
And WE pay for the bailout.
Stacey K
I like making signs
And here's an article showing it's not just Trump, it's a decades long cycle of overproduction and bailouts. Not just with soybeans but all ag markets. That's exactly what I think so I'm glad I found this article!!
farmaction.us
This is why I think that:
I did payroll for 365 farms for 7 years, millions of dollars a month. When there's over production, prices fall. At times, we literally picked up milk on the farms, paid the farmer and dumped the milk down the drain. We cut our farm numbers from 365 to just over 125 in 7 years. I was pretty much out of a full-time job. We had not taken on a new farms in something like 12 years. The farms we had began to expand, the next generation came in a created mega farms. They bought out the small farms cows. In just the time I worked there the average cow could produce something like 8% more milk per milking. The mega farms were adding calves left and right. Robotic milk parlors came into the picture, better feed programs, etc. (rotating milk parlors are super cool if you get the chance to visit one) If it's happening in dairy, it's happening with crops. Overproduction was a REAL problem for us in milk. There's only so much demand.
I don't want to blame the farmers but the general rule of money is...don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm not a fan of bailouts and although I love farms, my ex in-laws have a dairy farm and my ex farms and has boer goats. But --- overproduction is a dangerous thing. I kinda feel bad for them, but I kinda don't.
If you own a sign shop chain with 10 shops "John's Signs" and you get a contract with NASCAR and 5 of those shops do 100% NASCAR, 3 of them do 50% NASCAR and 2 of them only do about 20% NASCAR.
What happens to your chain when NASCAR says they get a better deal with "Stacey's Signs" and they are moving business? 5 of your shops go under, 3 of them suffer and lay people off but the other 2 are OK because they can absorb it.
My point is, it's not Trump's fault, it's not Biden's fault. It's the industry in general and the way the government handles bailouts over many decades. Overproduction is real and it's been a problem.
China Stopped Buying U.S. Soybeans. The Real Problem Started Decades Ago. | Farm Action
Beneath the headlines about trade wars and bailouts lies a deeper truth: America’s agricultural system is structurally flawed. We expose how it all started decades ago in Washington.
farmaction.us
This is why I think that:
I did payroll for 365 farms for 7 years, millions of dollars a month. When there's over production, prices fall. At times, we literally picked up milk on the farms, paid the farmer and dumped the milk down the drain. We cut our farm numbers from 365 to just over 125 in 7 years. I was pretty much out of a full-time job. We had not taken on a new farms in something like 12 years. The farms we had began to expand, the next generation came in a created mega farms. They bought out the small farms cows. In just the time I worked there the average cow could produce something like 8% more milk per milking. The mega farms were adding calves left and right. Robotic milk parlors came into the picture, better feed programs, etc. (rotating milk parlors are super cool if you get the chance to visit one) If it's happening in dairy, it's happening with crops. Overproduction was a REAL problem for us in milk. There's only so much demand.
I don't want to blame the farmers but the general rule of money is...don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm not a fan of bailouts and although I love farms, my ex in-laws have a dairy farm and my ex farms and has boer goats. But --- overproduction is a dangerous thing. I kinda feel bad for them, but I kinda don't.
If you own a sign shop chain with 10 shops "John's Signs" and you get a contract with NASCAR and 5 of those shops do 100% NASCAR, 3 of them do 50% NASCAR and 2 of them only do about 20% NASCAR.
What happens to your chain when NASCAR says they get a better deal with "Stacey's Signs" and they are moving business? 5 of your shops go under, 3 of them suffer and lay people off but the other 2 are OK because they can absorb it.
My point is, it's not Trump's fault, it's not Biden's fault. It's the industry in general and the way the government handles bailouts over many decades. Overproduction is real and it's been a problem.
the whole 'TOO BIG TO FAIL" concept...And here's an article showing it's not just Trump, it's a decades long cycle of overproduction and bailouts. Not just with soybeans but all ag markets. That's exactly what I think so I'm glad I found this article!!
China Stopped Buying U.S. Soybeans. The Real Problem Started Decades Ago. | Farm Action
Beneath the headlines about trade wars and bailouts lies a deeper truth: America’s agricultural system is structurally flawed. We expose how it all started decades ago in Washington.
This is why I think that:
I did payroll for 365 farms for 7 years, millions of dollars a month. When there's over production, prices fall. At times, we literally picked up milk on the farms, paid the farmer and dumped the milk down the drain. We cut our farm numbers from 365 to just over 125 in 7 years. I was pretty much out of a full-time job. We had not taken on a new farms in something like 12 years. The farms we had began to expand, the next generation came in a created mega farms. They bought out the small farms cows. In just the time I worked there the average cow could produce something like 8% more milk per milking. The mega farms were adding calves left and right. Robotic milk parlors came into the picture, better feed programs, etc. (rotating milk parlors are super cool if you get the chance to visit one) If it's happening in dairy, it's happening with crops. Overproduction was a REAL problem for us in milk. There's only so much demand.
I don't want to blame the farmers but the general rule of money is...don't put all your eggs in one basket. I'm not a fan of bailouts and although I love farms, my ex in-laws have a dairy farm and my ex farms and has boer goats. But --- overproduction is a dangerous thing. I kinda feel bad for them, but I kinda don't.
If you own a sign shop chain with 10 shops "John's Signs" and you get a contract with NASCAR and 5 of those shops do 100% NASCAR, 3 of them do 50% NASCAR and 2 of them only do about 20% NASCAR.
What happens to your chain when NASCAR says they get a better deal with "Stacey's Signs" and they are moving business? 5 of your shops go under, 3 of them suffer and lay people off but the other 2 are OK because they can absorb it.
My point is, it's not Trump's fault, it's not Biden's fault. It's the industry in general and the way the government handles bailouts over many decades. Overproduction is real and it's been a problem.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
This can actually trace back to a section in the New Deal back in the depression era that would later morph to become the Farm Bill (Farm Aid as well) that probably most know on here. It really should have stopped after we got out of the Great Depression (I say this as someone that is still an Aggie (6th generation and formal education is in ag science (hard and soft science degrees)).
For those that love having more government intervention into stuff, regardless if it's farming or healthcare etc, long term programs do not do well with government involvement in such things. Always leads to a high degree of fraud as well (subsides paid to died farmers (notice a common thread here, where else have the dead gotten payments?), even a pandemic related aid fraud case as well). When there are huge programs like this (usually coming from one general direction of things as well), very much a greater chance of fraud/abuse.
And thus, here we are.
For those that love having more government intervention into stuff, regardless if it's farming or healthcare etc, long term programs do not do well with government involvement in such things. Always leads to a high degree of fraud as well (subsides paid to died farmers (notice a common thread here, where else have the dead gotten payments?), even a pandemic related aid fraud case as well). When there are huge programs like this (usually coming from one general direction of things as well), very much a greater chance of fraud/abuse.
And thus, here we are.
ddarlak
Go Bills!
Pre-2018, China bought up to two-thirds of U.S. exports, but trade disputes and retaliatory tariffs effectively halted purchases in 2025
But anything to protect your cult leader, it's not his fault it's the industry......
Trump isn't the problem with America, it's the fools that follow
But anything to protect your cult leader, it's not his fault it's the industry......
Trump isn't the problem with America, it's the fools that follow
Johnny Best
Active Member
China would rather buy the soybeans from Brazil because they are cleaner and better than the US soybeans.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
What lead to things coming to head here started long before now. Most people associate those in the office now for these issues.
Starting with the New Deal, the ag sector in the US as not been a free market sector and not allowed to handle things on their own. And that can be a tricky thing with food sector, but unfortunately, we see what happens when there is too much government involvement.
Having any one foreign country buy the "majority" of our goods is not a good thing, or the majority of a specific type of good. Anyone here would like their competitor, single competitor at that, to be the majority of their revenue? Does that sound like a good thing? If it wasn't trade disputes, it could have been anything to use as leverage if the US was doing something to China's allies (or vice versa), say the Brics nations (shoot, maybe they are also stewing over what happened to Iran not that long ago). Especially since we have had a ping pong relationship with China since the 90s (80s seem to have been more buddy buddy if I recall, well until '89 anyway). Any agreements or cooperation is a matter of convenience, nothing more. I'm not saying not to have trade, especially if it's a surplus, but trading overwhelming to one country is not a good thing (be it a surplus or a deficit). Relationships change and if it wasn't tariffs (or that is just the reason that people are using being it's expedient to do so), it would have been something else at some point.
Depending on what it is, sometimes these things came to head with the current leadership, but issues were manifesting (a word that the younger generation likes) long before hand. Sometimes it's true, other times, it's not, it just depends. Some people blame LBJ for Vietnam, but issues started as early as FDR and French Indochina and really accelerated with Truman.
John Miller
Some day everything gonna be different.... when I
Who would do just about anything to stay in the Gold House
Johnny Best
Active Member
You read about soy beans and then the Trump derangement starts up. Some of you people love to dig up shit on Trump. But never a word from you guys when that nimrod we just had as a leader was doing nothing but dozing off and letting people in our country by the millions.
AndersHerp
Something, something Dark Side
Dozing off is funny lol
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
Ironically, we have FDR with what 4 terms and consecutive ones at that. What brought about the 2 term limit. People seem to be agast when the trolling of a 3rd term and yet, we have had it and not only that, but yet a 4th term as well.
I also seem to remember that very thing being said, before we had the interim "leader". So I don't necessarily think that it holds that much water in practice. Even re-electing a person for their 2nd non consecutive term is not without precedent.
WildWestDesigns
Active Member
If it wasn't for tariffs, it would have been for something. I wouldn't be surprised of another June 4th (or 3rd), '89 issue. When one has one major customer, that does lead to some issues. Would anyone here recommend that 75% plus revenue coming from one source or the majority of good imported coming from one source? Of course, Taiwan issue in the mid 90s as well, led to diplomacy issues. They are going on about Taiwan in recent years as well, so that could have been another one. The biggest difference is didn't have the dependence on them as we do now and yes, when things strain, it can take time for other sources to be found (if they are) and that will cause some teething pain.
I for one, never have liked the idea of all my eggs in one basket. It doesn't make economic sense. Particularly when it's a "partnership of convenience" and nothing more.
TradeBalanceBoss
New Member
We need smaller government. How is it so huge? Well we pay them too much money in taxes and they have so much money they are giving a bunch of money to anyone who puts their hand out, even other countries, with OUR HARD EARNED money that they take from us in "taxes" by the threat of jail.
Imagine if we didn't have to pay income tax and property tax. We would have a nice giant chunk of extra money.
Stacey K
I like making signs
It's no different than when we invest money into retirement accounts, one would never bank on just one stock...we diversify.
Random thought...farmers can't plant soybeans in the same field every year. The crop has to be rotated, typically with corn. So these farmers if they have 1,000 acres, 500 is corn and 500 is soybeans. You can only rotate soybeans and corn for so many years before you have to plant a cover crop to put nutrients back into the ground. So, my point is I would guess these farmers are only losing half their overall crops, unless they rotate entire fields each year, 2025 soybeans, 2026 corn, 2027 soybeans....
Unless someone knows different, I would be curious to hear about it.
I never mean to cut down any farmers, I'm simply discussing. I know when I was still married my in-laws would say there were lots of government handouts and some of their friends would take them and buy TV's, etc. My in-laws are very smart with money and always did a lot of investing in the stock market to counter bad years of milk prices. Which again, they diversified.
Random thought...farmers can't plant soybeans in the same field every year. The crop has to be rotated, typically with corn. So these farmers if they have 1,000 acres, 500 is corn and 500 is soybeans. You can only rotate soybeans and corn for so many years before you have to plant a cover crop to put nutrients back into the ground. So, my point is I would guess these farmers are only losing half their overall crops, unless they rotate entire fields each year, 2025 soybeans, 2026 corn, 2027 soybeans....
Unless someone knows different, I would be curious to hear about it.
I never mean to cut down any farmers, I'm simply discussing. I know when I was still married my in-laws would say there were lots of government handouts and some of their friends would take them and buy TV's, etc. My in-laws are very smart with money and always did a lot of investing in the stock market to counter bad years of milk prices. Which again, they diversified.
Last edited:
Stacey K
I like making signs
That would be great, but they would probably get us with sales tax! LOL
