Anyone believe this?

[Westwind]

From Chat GPT. Questions was “how do farm subsidies benefit U.S. interests globally”

Farm subsidies benefit U.S. interests globally in several ways by enhancing food security, economic influence, trade competitiveness, and geopolitical stability. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Strengthening U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness

• Global Market Leadership: Subsidies help U.S. farmers produce crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat at competitive prices, ensuring that U.S. agricultural products dominate global markets.

• Export Strength: Subsidized crops often lead to surpluses that can be exported, boosting the U.S. trade balance and economic influence in global food markets.

2. Ensuring Food Security

• Global Food Aid: Surpluses from subsidized production allow the U.S. to provide food aid to developing countries, enhancing its reputation as a humanitarian leader while fostering goodwill and stability in regions of strategic importance.

• Price Stability: Subsidies help stabilize global food prices by ensuring consistent U.S. agricultural output, reducing the risk of food shortages and price volatility that could lead to economic or political instability abroad.

3. Advancing Geopolitical Goals

• Influence in Trade Agreements: By dominating agricultural exports, the U.S. gains leverage in negotiating trade agreements and setting global agricultural policies.

• Soft Power: Food aid and trade partnerships strengthen U.S. relationships with developing nations, increasing its influence in global politics.

4. Protecting Domestic Producers Against Global Competition

• Subsidies shield U.S. farmers from global price fluctuations and competition, enabling them to maintain production levels that meet both domestic and international demand.


5. Supporting Research and Innovation

• U.S. subsidies often fund agricultural research and technological advancements, which are shared globally. These innovations improve productivity and sustainability in agriculture worldwide.

6. Stabilizing Global Supply Chains

• Reliable agricultural output from the U.S., supported by subsidies, ensures a steady supply of key commodities for global industries, fostering economic stability.

In summary, U.S. farm subsidies play a strategic role in reinforcing the nation’s global economic and geopolitical influence while contributing to international food security and economic stability. However, these benefits are not without controversy, as they can lead to trade disputes and criticisms of unfair competition from other agricultural producers.

 

[hillrunner]

I don't think it's as simple as just converting soy and corn acreages into something else. There are global market forces that have a strong influence over what is grown where. You can't grow just anything anywhere you want. Land that's suitable for grain might not be suitable for farming fruit or vegetables, and the global market might not have demand for more fruit and vegetables. Corn and soy are useful as more than just food, and their versatility leads to their massive production.

Could we fix the farm subsidy system? Probably. But I would hate to see this country experience instability in food supply or food prices. It would crash the markets and the economy. Violence and political instability would probably increase massively. Stability, and confidence in that stability, is probably the most important thing a country could have, especially in this era of de-globalization.

You're right, but that was kind of my point. There is a whole lot of ground that isn't well suited to corn and soybeans but that's what it's growing because that's been made artificially profitable. I'm not saying it's good for vegetable production, most likely it's best use is as pasture or hay ground for livestock. there is a lot of highly erodible ground producing grain with major run off issues.

Corn and soy are used for a lot of things that they don't need to be used for. They are used because that is what the system produces. We've only been doing this mono crop agriculture system for a short time. My fear is that we do not yet know the consequences of messing around with natural systems to this degree. How much of our topsoil have we lost in the last 100 years?

I'm not going to claim I have the answers, but I don't think that blindly trusting the system is the best answer either. Companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and Tyson are more than happy to keep farmers noses just above water while they rake in billions.

 

[Westwind]

I look at it this way- the farm subsidies help cement our place and influence in the world.

Russias greatest export is said by some to be corruption, not oil. (Those bastards are nothing more than a gas station posing as a country.)

Why do we care? Africa is a great reason. Africa is full of precious minerals, gold, gemstones and lithium. Africa is unstable as hell. Russia provides military support and Wagner mercenaries to two bit dictators in Africa. They then access rare earth minerals, gold and gem mining operations. It’s part of what keeps Putin’s war machine viable and able to generate instability in Europe. Europe is arguably the most important trading partner the U.S. has.

Same with the Chinese in Africa. If they can lock us out of lithium and minerals we need they win. By “win” I mean industrial dominance.

China is longing for access to deep water ports so they can project power. They have been kept at bay partially by this one thing.

Farms and farming have unintended consequences on these U.S. ag and foreign interests. .. For instance- tariffs on China caused a shift from China buying U.S. grown crops to buying from South America. That increased South American production. That puts price pressure on our farmers. It also improved China’s prospects for access to ports in the West. China only acts in their own interest. China getting a strong foothold in the West is a problem for the U.S. and is certainly a reason beyond “making farmers rich” for farm subsidies.

It’s a big world. And it’s complicated. We do good in the world that advances our interests, our economy and world stability. Part of that is projecting soft power and our farmers are a big part of that. Stability is good. Feeding the hungry is good. Benefitting from that ain’t half bad either.

 

[Skeeter]

From Chat GPT. Questions was “how do farm subsidies benefit U.S. interests globally”

Farm subsidies benefit U.S. interests globally in several ways by enhancing food security, economic influence, trade competitiveness, and geopolitical stability. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Strengthening U.S. Agricultural Competitiveness

• Global Market Leadership: Subsidies help U.S. farmers produce crops like corn, soybeans, and wheat at competitive prices, ensuring that U.S. agricultural products dominate global markets.

• Export Strength: Subsidized crops often lead to surpluses that can be exported, boosting the U.S. trade balance and economic influence in global food markets.

2. Ensuring Food Security

• Global Food Aid: Surpluses from subsidized production allow the U.S. to provide food aid to developing countries, enhancing its reputation as a humanitarian leader while fostering goodwill and stability in regions of strategic importance.

• Price Stability: Subsidies help stabilize global food prices by ensuring consistent U.S. agricultural output, reducing the risk of food shortages and price volatility that could lead to economic or political instability abroad.

3. Advancing Geopolitical Goals

• Influence in Trade Agreements: By dominating agricultural exports, the U.S. gains leverage in negotiating trade agreements and setting global agricultural policies.

• Soft Power: Food aid and trade partnerships strengthen U.S. relationships with developing nations, increasing its influence in global politics.

4. Protecting Domestic Producers Against Global Competition

• Subsidies shield U.S. farmers from global price fluctuations and competition, enabling them to maintain production levels that meet both domestic and international demand.


5. Supporting Research and Innovation

• U.S. subsidies often fund agricultural research and technological advancements, which are shared globally. These innovations improve productivity and sustainability in agriculture worldwide.

6. Stabilizing Global Supply Chains

• Reliable agricultural output from the U.S., supported by subsidies, ensures a steady supply of key commodities for global industries, fostering economic stability.

In summary, U.S. farm subsidies play a strategic role in reinforcing the nation’s global economic and geopolitical influence while contributing to international food security and economic stability. However, these benefits are not without controversy, as they can lead to trade disputes and criticisms of unfair competition from other agricultural producers.

With there being numerous examples of Chat GPT giving biased or outright false answers to questions I would hardly consider it a reliable. Even when response source materials are checked, they often show that they are opinion pieces, not outright fact.

 

[Westwind]

@Skeeter

I read it before I posted it. I didn’t find anything factually incorrect or that my views disagree with.

I now subscribe to Chat GPT and use it for summaries of legal issues and to process large and complex spreadsheets. It is surprisingly helpful.

How you interact with it affects the result. Like the old computing saying- garbage in, garbage out. I’m getting better at using it and get a better result accordingly.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I think my point didn’t do a good job landing. Our government can prop up any industry it wants because it’s so big and influential. It can also tear down any it chooses, see coal…
It’s undeniable that three basic needs are food water AND shelter. If I buy 100 acres and I want to row crop the government literally provides programs to give me tax payer money. I pull no permits, I’m exempt from almost all environmental protections any other industry will get hammered over. If I buy 100 acres and want to put a subdivision on it the cost, blowback, risk of some govt organization denying it for subjective reasons is through the roof. Then if approved some builders leverages his family’s family future to build houses that are at risk of not selling due to a multitude of factors (i.e rising rates due to government mismanagement of fiscal policy) and if he fails tough shit you are broke forever most likely. But yet shelter is just as important as food and water. Where’s the bailout or subsidies, etc.

I hate development more than I hate some fence line to fence line monoculture field but the hypocrisies in sentiments and policies is glaring to me.

 

[hillrunner]

With there being numerous examples of Chat GPT giving biased or outright false answers to questions I would hardly consider it a reliable. Even when response source materials are checked, they often show that they are opinion pieces, not outright fact.

Grok was a bit more balanced lol. It gave a long list of pros and cons with this conclusion:
In conclusion, while some argue that eliminating farm subsidies could lead to a more efficient and market-driven agricultural sector, others highlight the risks of such a move on food security, farm viability, and environmental practices. The decision involves balancing these complex outcomes, with no straightforward answer but rather a series of trade-offs that policymakers must navigate.

 

[jsasker007]

It's just like anything else that starts off with good intentions and was initially meant to help the people that NEED help. When free money is involved everything gets abused. Welfare.

 

[Mortenson]

Couple more points. Grain farmers do not get yearly direct payments. The majority of years there are no payments. This year looks to have a payment. $43 for planted corn acres and $30 for planted bean acres. If you're on this forum and crop shared an 80 acre field of soybeans, you look to get a check for 1,200. If you cash rented it out, technically you're not a farmer and will not get a payment, but you can ask your farmer for a raise in rent. Other crops have payments as well.

Despite the payments this year, some farmers won't be able to keep the operation going. If you're on the brink, I'd guess more won't make it as opposed to the number who will make it just because of this payment - IE getting bailed out.

I think it's pretty well known these payments don't end up in the farmers' pockets. They pay taxes and the inevitable markup in equipment and inputs that always follows. They pass through the farmer. I agree it's unfair a home builder doesn't get the same deal. But if he did, he'd probably agree he didn't really see a net gain, just more expensive supplies to purchase.

Totally agree the subsidized crop insurance sucks. I've often stated I don't agree with it, and we always bought private crop insurance at full premium before the subsidy became a thing. It absolutely puts corn and bean acres into production in the fringe areas, fringe states where those crops probably shouldn't be grown as much. And on sensitive acres. We have flat, deep, black ground where I live. I have a neighbor living next to one of our fields that always likes to give a hard time about tillage etc. His yard and our field are the exact same height. I don't see how we've lost a cm since the invention of the plow. Couple with the skyscraper strawberries being touted on here, I just don't see the concern in this area. I will add, plant breeding has made great strides over the years. Drought hardy corn can do relatively well in NoDak compared to years ago.

Ethanol does not take more energy to make than it provides. Think that's a lie being spread by big oil. I'd much rather fill my chainsaws with Shell gasoline with an ethanol blend than junk gas from many of the lesser gas stations.

 

[Foggy47]

I truly don't understand this idea that farming = corporate farms. I get it that farms incorporate for tax and business purposes. But, is there really an idea that Apple - just to use a corporation as an example - is calling the shots? Or are we confusing "big" farms with "corporate" farms?

Gotta clarify for a minute here. There are (A) hobby farms, (B) small, medium and large, family farms, (C) Small, Medium, Large, and MEGA Corporate farms. Some of the Mega farms have several hundred or several thousand employees. Some of those dairy farms in the west are just huge.......same goes for corporate growers out in OZ.....some run many thousands of acres. Same can be said for the chicken, pork, egg, and beef industries. Some very big operators figuring out how to take money from taxpayers.

I have an issue with any of the large and Mega family & corporate farms participating in federal funding. OTOH they feed an awful lot of folks at some pretty low costs.....and it becomes hard to pull the rug out from under them. Kinda like wind generators to me. We keep snookering ourselves into some of those programs....and it's a slippery slope.

EDIT: I just read that over 1/2 of the windmills that are standing today.....are non-functioning and should be taken down. Problem is....there is no recycling plan in place for those windmills. Each has over 500 gallons of oil to get rid of.....and many materials that do not recycle. Great plan there.

 

[Westwind]

Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT about the effects of tariffs on U.S. ag producers. I’m not an economist. Not even an amateur one. One of the things I am though is a moderately enthusiastic viewer of the weekend farm shows. I learn something very time I watch them. Farming and economics are closely intertwined. Kinda seems like the stuff I hear on the farm shows.

U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, implemented during the U.S.-China trade war (2018–2020), had significant ripple effects on global agricultural trade, particularly benefiting South American farm exports to China. Here’s how the tariffs impacted South American agriculture:

1. Diversion of Chinese Demand to South America
• Soybean Trade:
• The U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, particularly soybeans, which were previously a key U.S. export to China.
• As a result, China sought alternative suppliers, significantly increasing soybean imports from Brazil and, to a lesser extent, Argentina.
• Outcome: Brazil became China’s largest supplier of soybeans, accounting for nearly 80% of China’s soybean imports in 2019, up from around 50% before the trade war.

2. Price Competitiveness for South American Crops
• U.S. farmers faced higher costs and reduced demand due to tariffs, making South American crops relatively cheaper and more attractive to Chinese buyers.
• This created an opportunity for South American producers to expand their market share in China.

3. Expansion of South American Agricultural Production
• South American farmers, particularly in Brazil, expanded soybean cultivation to meet China’s increased demand.
• This expansion sometimes came at the cost of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, driven by the need for more farmland.

4. Long-Term Supply Chain Shifts
• The trade war encouraged China to diversify its supply chain and reduce reliance on U.S. agricultural exports, creating long-term partnerships with South American countries.
• Even after the U.S. and China reached a trade agreement in 2020 (Phase One Deal), South America retained a substantial share of the Chinese market.

5. Impact on Global Trade Dynamics
• U.S. tariffs accelerated the growth of South America’s role as a global agricultural powerhouse, particularly in soybeans, corn, and beef.
• South American countries benefited from higher export revenues and stronger trade relationships with China.

Summary:
The U.S.-China trade war significantly benefited South American agricultural exporters, particularly Brazil and Argentina, as China redirected its demand for key commodities like soybeans. This shift reshaped global trade flows, solidifying South America’s role as a vital supplier to China and reducing China’s reliance on U.S. agriculture.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

I think my point didn’t do a good job landing. Our government can prop up any industry it wants because it’s so big and influential. It can also tear down any it chooses, see coal…
It’s undeniable that three basic needs are food water AND shelter. If I buy 100 acres and I want to row crop the government literally provides programs to give me tax payer money. I pull no permits, I’m exempt from almost all environmental protections any other industry will get hammered over. If I buy 100 acres and want to put a subdivision on it the cost, blowback, risk of some govt organization denying it for subjective reasons is through the roof. Then if approved some builders leverages his family’s family future to build houses that are at risk of not selling due to a multitude of factors (i.e rising rates due to government mismanagement of fiscal policy) and if he fails tough shit you are broke forever most likely. But yet shelter is just as important as food and water. Where’s the bailout or subsidies, etc.

I hate development more than I hate some fence line to fence line monoculture field but the hypocrisies in sentiments and policies is glaring to me.

As for our government tearing down the coal industry - many countries are, and have been, moving away from coal and other dirtier, polluting sources of energy. It's a global push - not just in the U.S. Even China, that gets much of its electricity powered by coal, has recognized the environmental ruin coal is causing. China is rapidly pushing for greener sources of energy, and wants to dominate the global "greener" market. Do we want to let them win that one? Just a thought.

 

[Foggy47]

As for our government tearing down the coal industry - many countries are, and have been, moving away from coal and other dirtier, polluting sources of energy. It's a global push - not just in the U.S. Even China, that gets much of its electricity powered by coal, has recognized the environmental ruin coal is causing. China is rapidly pushing for greener sources of energy, and wants to dominate the global "greener" market. Do we want to let them win that one? Just a thought.

Sooner or later we all gotta breath the same air and live in the same "bio-sphere". What is good for China's environment is good for the USA invironment......IMO.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

As for our government tearing down the coal industry - many countries are, and have been, moving away from coal and other dirtier, polluting sources of energy. It's a global push - not just in the U.S. Even China, that gets much of its electricity powered by coal, has recognized the environmental ruin coal is causing. China is rapidly pushing for greener sources of energy, and wants to dominate the global "greener" market. Do we want to let them win that one? Just a thought.

You mean killing an industry in favor of the flavor of the month such as solar and wind which is notoriously unreliable, inefficient and maybe a worse stain on the landscape than coal? Are the thousands upon thousands of coal industry employees livelihoods not worth saving? What about the rich history of coal communities and generations of families that were shaped by being coal folks…you know, like the family farmer.

What I’m saying is the government meddling in the sustainability of any industry seems wrong.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

You mean killing an industry in favor of the flavor of the month such as solar and wind which is notoriously unreliable, inefficient and maybe a worse stain on the landscape than coal? Are the thousands upon thousands of coal industry employees livelihoods not worth saving? What about the rich history of coal communities and generations of families that were shaped by being coal folks…you know, like the family farmer.

What I’m saying is the government meddling in the sustainability of any industry seems wrong.

I think most if not all coal fueled power plants that were shut down were replaced with natural gas. Solar and wind may have contributed but natural gas became cheaper, cost wise and environmentally.

 

[Jerry-B-WI]

Just for fun, I asked Chat GPT about the effects of tariffs on U.S. ag producers. I’m not an economist. Not even an amateur one. One of the things I am though is a moderately enthusiastic viewer of the weekend farm shows. I learn something very time I watch them. Farming and economics are closely intertwined. Kinda seems like the stuff I hear on the farm shows.

U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods, implemented during the U.S.-China trade war (2018–2020), had significant ripple effects on global agricultural trade, particularly benefiting South American farm exports to China. Here’s how the tariffs impacted South American agriculture:

1. Diversion of Chinese Demand to South America
• Soybean Trade:
• The U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. agricultural products, particularly soybeans, which were previously a key U.S. export to China.
• As a result, China sought alternative suppliers, significantly increasing soybean imports from Brazil and, to a lesser extent, Argentina.
• Outcome: Brazil became China’s largest supplier of soybeans, accounting for nearly 80% of China’s soybean imports in 2019, up from around 50% before the trade war.

2. Price Competitiveness for South American Crops
• U.S. farmers faced higher costs and reduced demand due to tariffs, making South American crops relatively cheaper and more attractive to Chinese buyers.
• This created an opportunity for South American producers to expand their market share in China.

3. Expansion of South American Agricultural Production
• South American farmers, particularly in Brazil, expanded soybean cultivation to meet China’s increased demand.
• This expansion sometimes came at the cost of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, driven by the need for more farmland.

4. Long-Term Supply Chain Shifts
• The trade war encouraged China to diversify its supply chain and reduce reliance on U.S. agricultural exports, creating long-term partnerships with South American countries.
• Even after the U.S. and China reached a trade agreement in 2020 (Phase One Deal), South America retained a substantial share of the Chinese market.

5. Impact on Global Trade Dynamics
• U.S. tariffs accelerated the growth of South America’s role as a global agricultural powerhouse, particularly in soybeans, corn, and beef.
• South American countries benefited from higher export revenues and stronger trade relationships with China.

Summary:
The U.S.-China trade war significantly benefited South American agricultural exporters, particularly Brazil and Argentina, as China redirected its demand for key commodities like soybeans. This shift reshaped global trade flows, solidifying South America’s role as a vital supplier to China and reducing China’s reliance on U.S. agriculture.

Did the Chat GPT mention anything about bean farmers getting checks from the government to help replace the the lost sales to China?

 

[West_Fork]

As for our government tearing down the coal industry - many countries are, and have been, moving away from coal and other dirtier, polluting sources of energy. It's a global push - not just in the U.S. Even China, that gets much of its electricity powered by coal, has recognized the environmental ruin coal is causing. China is rapidly pushing for greener sources of energy, and wants to dominate the global "greener" market. Do we want to let them win that one? Just a thought.

I agree the war on cheap reliable energy is by globalists and not particularly the US, but I have to point a couple things in your comment;

"polluting sources of energy" eludes to a fictitious paradise where it is possible to produce energy without any pollution (waste). That belief has no place in reality.

China is not pursuing "greener" sources of energy. That is a pure propaganda.

The "green" energy efforts in the US are controlled by unduly influenced politics and people with a money making scheme. There is nothing "green," sustainable, or renewable about it.

 

[homerj]

China has about 4 times the number of coal burning power plants than does the U.S.

Pursuing green energy....haha

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Putting a new one online every month

 

[Telemark]

EDIT: I just read that over 1/2 of the windmills that are standing today.....are non-functioning and should be taken down. Problem is....there is no recycling plan in place for those windmills. Each has over 500 gallons of oil to get rid of.....and many materials that do not recycle. Great plan there.

They just bury them.