Significant US farm losses persist, despite federal assistance

Why farming is heavily subsidized

• Many commenters frame food production as national security infrastructure: domestic surplus and spare capacity are seen as insurance against climate shocks, war, or trade disruption.
• Subsidies are also described as political tools: farmers live in over‑represented rural states, and cheap, stable food prices are viewed as essential to political stability.
• Several argue that most support is effectively subsidized insurance rather than pure cash transfers, because a single bad year can destroy a heavily leveraged farm.

Market structure and monopsony pressure

• Broad agreement that farmers are “squeezed in the middle”:
  • Few mega‑suppliers for seeds, fertilizer, machinery, etc.
  • Few mega‑buyers/packers for grains and meat.
• Resulting lack of pricing power means subsidies often flow through farmers into corporate profits rather than stabilizing farm incomes.
• Some trace this to decades of weak antitrust enforcement and mergers; suggested remedies include breaking up agribusiness, restoring competition, and strengthening farmworker unions.

Overproduction, biofuels, and environmental costs

• Multiple threads argue the US massively overproduces calories, especially corn and soy, with large shares going to animal feed and biofuels.
• Corn‑to‑ethanol is heavily criticized as a politically driven, environmentally harmful sink for surplus grain that also raises food prices. Others counter that ethanol mainly absorbs unpredictable surplus from rotations farmers must plant anyway.
• Debate over cattle: some say livestock is an inefficient “grain sink”; others note pasture land and nutrient profiles complicate the simple calorie‑efficiency argument.

Subsidies: stabilizer or distortion?

• Pro‑subsidy voices: dropping support would not make food cheaper, just scarcer and risk famine; surplus and set‑aside programs are seen as buffers against shocks.
• Critics argue long‑term subsidies entrench low‑value monocultures (corn/soy), discourage innovation and diversification, and primarily benefit large operations and landowners.
• Several liken this to healthcare and education: permanent public money encourages rent‑seeking systems optimized to capture subsidies.

Trade policy, politics, and “voting against interests”

• Trade wars and tariffs, especially with China, are repeatedly cited as having destroyed key export markets (e.g., soybeans), worsening farm finances despite federal aid.
• Long subthreads debate why many farmers continue to back politicians whose trade and immigration policies hurt them economically, with explanations ranging from culture‑war appeals and identity politics to distrust of distant federal institutions.

International comparisons and alternative models

• Canada’s supply‑management for dairy/eggs is discussed as an alternative: quotas and price controls aim for stable farmer incomes and modest overproduction; critics point to waste and higher consumer prices.
• New Zealand’s removal of most subsidies is cited both as a success story (forced innovation, higher efficiency) and as a cautionary tale (consolidation and environmental damage).