EWS Says Farm Economy In Good Shape

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

http://www.ewg.org/research/farm-crisis-myth

"It’s true that commodity prices for crops like corn and soybeans have been dropping over the last few years, but today’s prices are simply declining from what were historic highs. "

I get a kick out of a statement like the above.  What it ignores is that commodity production is a zero sum game and that dropping back to "normal" prices simply means that we're dropping back to break-even.  The high prices of recent years are the only significant profits that many farmers have had.

"And farm household income is continuing to rise, even though net income from agricultural operations is projected to decrease slightly. That’s because the majority of farm households earn much of their income from off-farm sources. Small farms with less than $350,000 in annual farm income make up almost 90 percent of all farms, and they get almost all of their income from off-farm sources."

Let me see if I understand this.  I think it says the farm economy is in good shape because many farmers don't rely on the farm income - it's in good shape because it's supplemented by off-farm income.

OK.  I guess I understand that.  I think it means that EWG thinks we're doing OK as farmer because our off-farm income is subsidizing our farming habit, and since that is the case ag subsidies are not needed.

Whatever.

[BA Deere]

"This time" probably is different, because of that off farm income. even the biggest of Bigshots seem to have some sort of gimmick, like a car dealership, implement dealership, construction company in addition to just, by the way farming 10,000 acres.  Not only are they at the size every input they buy is much cheaper and the grain basis is negotiated lower so their selling price is higher.  They may actually welcome losing money on their farming enterprise to off set the windfall profits coming from their other businesses.  Strange new world.

[smokeyjay]

Plausible spin, convincing the largely consumer audience, ones that rarely check facts for themselves. 

[k-289]

Jim  -  this    '' industry - business ''    being less than  2%  of the population will continue to have an uphill climb when it comes to  '''sympathy ''' or   ''' understanding ''' from the remaining 98% ---

Mind set - Boasting on one hand and whinning on the other seems to build a '' Nulification Crisis '' of sort  -  Example = coffee shop '' irrational exuberance '' about one's holdings  -  while at the county tax window '' hand wringing '' about one's real estate tax bill ---

Trust  me your consumer distant cousin's are watching  - and just - maybe  we could take some notice like the folks in D C are getting some educational lessons as of late  ---   Beef  Checkoff , Corn Board  -Pork Check Off ,  Water Drainage folks etc.  and others are you listening ? ?  

Some observations from Ted Cruz - Hilllary Clinton  - Sate of Kansas & others -  Land Grant College's  - local school boards - rural communities - taking things for granted - ah slice of humble pie anyone ?   

BA - '' strange world ''  under statement ''  - doing chores for China - not interested  ! !

[sw363535]

The misuse of statistical information is a great evil, which has become increasingly prevalent over the years, taking a great leap forward in its destructive force with the development of computers. Computers are a wonderful facility, but they have come to replace soundly reasoned theory by advancing the role of inappropriate statistics, and their supposed mathematical relationships."

-0----------------------

Good points 289

[SWMN native]

Sure, its slanted.  however, I know that rural america would be better off without subsidies.

The argument that they're making, is that subsidy dollars shouldn't be scaled to the size of operation.  If the goal of ag subsidies is to help ma and pa, or the beginning farmer, or the small towns that depend on the local farming population, well, yes.  The worst thing you can do is subsidize the conglomerate that is farming 10,000 acres with other ventures.  If the business gets riskier, and the investors decide they only have the stomach for 2,000 acres, isn't that better for farming?  It opens up 8,000 acres for beginning farmers, guys that have a job in town, and can stand 500 acres worth of risk.

The beneficiaries of our current system are largely input providers, and cash rent landlords.

[ncwinn54]

Exactly!  I have said for decades that subsidies aren't meant to benefit farmers...just the input companies.  

[sw363535]

Usda subsidizes bushels

You think it should subsidize farmers(people)

If we made that change the usda budget would be 100% welfare and entitlement.

ncwinn54 you are almost right.  The usda budget is intended to supply consumers...... food supply.

That is why it has never at any time kept farmers from leaving the farm.

It is false when anyone says the usda budget is a help for farmers.  Kansas has two long term senators that make that false statement in public..