Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Farmers are RICH, how did THIS happen???

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 9, 2012, 11:19 a.m. EST by bill1102inf2 (357)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Feel screwed over at the grocery store??? You should.

Farmers became banksters over the last few decades.

You hear it all the time, gasoline is up 9% so food costs are going up 9%. Seems fair?? Hell to the F no its not fair. Bet you still think it is! Its not, here is WHY.

Farmer A produces lets say 1 Million Green 'thing'(bushels/lbs/WHATEVER) it doesn't matter.

He sells those things and makes lets say $1.00 per thing after expenses.

Thats $1,000,000.00.

Now, lets say gasoline is $1.00 and he uses a WHOPPING 100,000 gallons per year $100,000.00 (remember, he makes a mil in profit).

Gas goes up 9%!, and lets say there are no advances in production and he uses the same amount, so now his cost is for that same gas is $109,00.00. All things being equal he would now only make $991,000 in profit.

BUT, the 'thing' he was selling was being SOLD FOR $3.00 per thing, and we figured 2/3rds was expenses (which is too high).

Raising prices by 9% increased his total take by $270,000.00 netting him out a REAL new adjusted profit of $1,261,000!!

Raising gasoline 9% and him raising prices 9% = BIG MOTHERTRUCKIN profits for the poor 'farmer'.

Guess who paid for that 2012 F-450 Quad-Extended Bed-Turbocharged-Chipped-Super Duty with $60,000 in just tires n rims parked next to the 2011 F-350 Super Duty with $60,000 in add-ons?

Sucked that it was you when you were forced to pay $5.99 for a gallon of milk which costs $.59/gal to produce, and that includes enough profit to put the farmers 3 kids through college and enough $ to send back to Mexico to feed a small village.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

That analysis is a bit simplistic. Assuming a large amount sold lets you play statistical games to make in increase in fuel costs seem small to the farmer. Did you just make up numbers for this, as an example?

The farmer is also paying for increased fuel costs for more then just delivery of the end product to market. Considering all expenses, the cost to the farmer of growing corn, wheat, and soybeans, went up 29%, 39%, and 40% respectively in 2009.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

The 'cost' to grow corn, wheat, soy, did NOT go up 29-40% at any time in 2009. While my analysis is very simplistic, it simply shows how fuel costs going up by X% should not afford the farmer to sell his wares at the same X% as his cost did not change by that X%, in fact, no where close to it.

[-] 5 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

According to a study by Perdue University the cost to grow those crops did jump by the percentages i quoted, it's stabilized in the last two years, but jumped from 2008 to 2009. You're original premiss is flawed and overly simplistic, it's not just fuel costs that have caused prices to go up. Fuel costs figure in all along the line, but competing offers to buy produce for animal feed, human consumption or for biofuels figures in to things too. The cost increase isn't just due to fuel costs.

Here are some actual corn facts, it would be similar for other crops. Cost to grow a bushel; about $4, selling price; $7, average number of bushels per acre; 54.7, average farm size in Iowa; 350 acres. That gives the average farmer a wage of $57,400 for the year. From which the man producing this produce his to pay his taxes, feed and care for his family, and try to keep all his business running. He's a long way from being a greedy robber baron.

Granted fuel is just a small piece of the costs a farmer faces and you can't say a 9% increase in gas means a 9% increase in produce prices. Your apparent rage is misdirected at farmers that face most of the same costs we do and are not making an unreasonable profit on their labor.

At 48 ears to a bushel and a supermarket charging 4 ears for $1 (a sale price in season), $12 a bushel, most of the profit clearly isn't going to greedy farmers. You're example is too simplistic and ignores all the middle men along the way that also make a profit and pay increased costs.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

Here's the thing JenLynn famers are becoming quite wealthy, the storys are all throught he farm belt. It's easy to get in the weeds and miss the big picture. We ended corn suport prices recently and it was hardly noticed because prices are so good right now. Personally I'm glad the famers are doing well but I think the overall food delivery system is somthing we should look at.

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

Their wealth isn't of much concern to me, it may be well deserved because they produce something necessary. I'd rather see farmers doing well then facebook stockholders.

I like that phrase "somthing we should look at", how and why? Should we get another government panel to look into something? I don't see this as a big priority, but then I don't get much say in anything anyhow.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8310) from Phoenix, AZ 12 years ago

Since you asked,

(1) I don’t believe corporations spend all of their money foolishly (2) I believe corporations spend billions of dollars on both developing and presenting advertising


I believe advertising affects the behavior of individuals.

(3) I believe advertising is presented in public places (4) I believe the public at large hold some responsibility over management of public spaces.


I believe that we hold some common responsibility over what happens as a result of what we allow in the public spaces and it is incumbent on us to at least try for good results.

Shorter answer "stop pushing junk food".

[-] 4 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

You've made a jump from farmers now to corporations, totally different subject. The delivery system certainly has corporate ties, but you seem more concerned with regulating what is produced and sold, rather then how the farm product is delivered.

I suppose free speech could be limited to political speech so you could regulate what someone says in an ad for health reasons. Not sure you'd get majority support, people like their junk food, that's why so many of them are obese. No amount of advertising has blinded people to the link between junk food and obesity.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

USDA says that 135 bushels per acre is how much corn was being produced in 2002. Avg farm sizes take into consideration the rediculously large amount of very small family farms owned by retirees and others who own farms who do not actually farm them, 5-10 acre lots. The real avg size of a farm is over 1000 acres. And besides, corn sucks, look at cotton.

[-] 5 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

I suppose I could look at cotton, but I don't eat it. Trying to figure out what makes cotton products go up in price is even more complex.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

The ONLY THING that makes prices go up in the world today??? G R E E D, and that is all. Its actually LESS EXPENSIVE NOW than ever in history to grow crops due to the GMO, machines, illegal labor, etc.

[-] 5 points by JenLynn (692) 12 years ago

Greed seems to be a universal problem. It seems like a large proportion of the posts here look to take wealth from someone and give it to someone else. Everyone wants to get the most for the least amount of effort.

[-] 0 points by oakwasenuf (66) 12 years ago

Wow! Bet you got one of the VIP tents at Zuccotti

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

My balls are so big THEY have their own tent at Zucotti

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 12 years ago

Farmers are not the ones getting rich. It is the commodities brokers, middle men and food markets that are getting the lions share of the profit.

[-] 1 points by SeanJC (1) 12 years ago

I think the simple fact is that farmers are rich, I mean in the UK they get subsidised ffor everything and farmers always drive large 4x4 such as Range Rovers due to the subsidy they get. As they are classed as work vehicles, but I ask you when did you ever see a Range Rover being used in a field. NEVER. Also I don't agree with the whole farm subisdies anyway, I mean if you cant run your farm as a profitable business like other businesses that don't get subsidised then shut down. Subsides are meant to help us all not just INCREASE profits for farmers.

Also I am fed up of farmers whinging about being ripped off by the supermarkets, I mean getting the contract in the first place is hard, but once you got it, you are guaranteed an income for crops you havent even planted yet, so if you dont like dealing with a supermarket try stopping working for them and see if selling your stuff in your local market will get you as much money for as little work. I think not.

So in short I think we need to stop giving farmers subsidies, as all they do is give the farmers the lifestyle they shouldn't have. We rent a house from a farmer and he owns all 6 houses on the row, when on earth did farmers become land owners and not just the labourers of society providing the food we live on.

Another last point why do these poor farmers also always live in huge farm houses, when the farm workers who do all the work live in small cottages?

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

Its even worse in the USA Sean, as we grow soo freaking much food, many farms are idled on purpose for 'price stability' which equals 'price increases'. Here they all drive lifted, turbocharged F-350 Super Duties with 30 grand in add ons and each rim has more chome than a freaking harley davidson, and those are the small trucks the farmers wives drive to the grocery store with. These are the SAME SCAMMERS who have owned the land since it was worth $1.0 an acre and hire ILLEGAL LABORERS to work their farm, which they pay cash at less than minimum wage (SLAVEROUS FELONIES but NEVER prosecuted).

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You sure do give the farmer a lot of credit in being able to control things such as raising prices for their products. What farmer do you know that goes into the grain elevator and tells the buyer what he has to pay for the corn, wheat, oats, soybeans, etc.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

Thats easy, all of them. China calls on the phone 'We offa $260/ton'. Farmer, 'Thats nice, all my corn is sold via comex, I just contracted for $289/ton which was immediately bought via the commodities market, click'

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

they make money t he old fashioned way

[-] 1 points by jomojo (562) 12 years ago

Buy local.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

You forgot to take into account that gasoline is more than $1 dollars, include the cost of transporting the crops through trucks and the fact that there are middle men involved.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Must NOT be any farmers posting on this forum about the farmer.

You did not even mention, fertilizers, pesticides, hibred seed, and on and on.

[-] 0 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

Nope, I did not, because gasoline was $1.xx not too long ago and this is an example, no one is using 100,000 gallons of fuel to make a million bucks.

In the above example, gasoline can increase by 400%, still leaving an ENOURMOUS profit. In reality, food sold for prices have increased 700% since say 1977, thats an extreme profit increase (much greater than 700%)

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You are simply ignorant.

How about basing some of your information of the price of grain in 1977, see how long that price remained the same and compare it with todays price.

Then explain how this is all related to the demand for corn to make ehtanol rather than the food that you think is too expensive. Corn is NOT going to give YOU cheap fuel for your car and cheap food at the same time.

You can take your ENORMOUS profit claim to an Iowa farmer and he will tell you how it really is. Been there - done that.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Unless you are BUYING these "things" directly from the farmer, HE is NOT the one setting the final retail price on the item.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 12 years ago

You just have to feel sorry for those poor taxpayer-subsidized corporate farmers like ADM and Cargill.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

oh yes, I cry for their plight :)

[-] 0 points by Jehovah (113) 12 years ago

Corporations are people, too, my son.

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

You could say corporations are made up of people.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

According to Citizens United, they are people. I guess that's why politicians can get away with being "in bed" with them ;)

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 12 years ago

You know what they say about big bribes

[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

actually that's incorrect...it was SANTA CLARA COUNTY V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO., 118 U. S. 394 (1886) that first gave that definition....


[-] 0 points by FreeDiscussion2 (9) 12 years ago

Now you hate the farmer. Next you will hate the guy that cleans out your portable shitter. You will never be happy because you are miserable and lazy. You whine about everything. How can you look in the mirror and not see a lazy whiner? Because you are too lazy to look in the mirror. It must suck for you knowing everyone thinks you are a lazy whiner.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 12 years ago

Wow! Fuel costs is the big ticket?

Machinery upgrade, upkeep and repair... How does this figure into the farmers costs and the final cost of product?

Fertilizer (made from petroleum products) would be affected by high oil prices.... How does this figure into the farmers costs and the final cost of product?

Increased tax burdens due to new carbon penalties and health care legislation... How does this figure into the farmers costs and the final cost of product?

Delivery and packaging increases due to costs associated with producing final product from raw material.... How does this figure into the farmers costs and the final cost of product?

What is the solution you suggest to the problem you present?

[-] 0 points by willcomply (6) 12 years ago

Reading this post only fortified my prior assumption that many Occupiers are complete fucktards.

[-] 0 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 12 years ago

This is the stupidest most ignorant post I think I have ever read. You know nothing of farming.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

This post was to get people thinking about WHY food costs are so high when clearly costs to 'produce' the food has not gone up enough to justify the increase.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 12 years ago

Here is a link to give you some idea of how it works:


[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

Your entire post is based on ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS rather than actual FACTS. Examples:

1 All farmers are exactly like this imaginary farmer.

2 All farmers make $1.00 profit per thing (whatever it is) after expenses

3 All farmers produce 1 million "things" per year.

4 Only ONE thing can possibly affect the price of a "thing" per year and that ONE thing is ALWAYS gasoline.

YOU made the initial ASSUMPTION that the farmer was making $1 profit per thing after expenses.

THEN you later demonstrate that YOUR ORIGINAL assumption was WRONG-because he was "really" making more than $1 per thing because YOU had estimated that his expenses were higher than they actually were.

Which means that you even proved YOUR OWN assumptions wrong in this example at least once outright.

And your math sucks too...taking an additional $9,000 from his profit margin (due to the increase) would result in $991,000.00 not $993,000.00

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 12 years ago

Your explanation is not very clear and is full of mathematical mistakes. You should fix your mistakes and clearly explain where you are getting all your numbers from.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Good afternoon Thrasymaque

Thanks for pointing out the total lack of intelligence being shown on the posts on this forum.

What contains even a grain of truth is an accidental statement as evidenced by the rest of the information provided.




[-] -1 points by IWillNeverStopBashing1Percen (-25) 12 years ago

48 hours ago, I had 2229 points. Now, its down to 1900. There is now an organized effort to discredit me. IT WON'T WORK. From now on, I will create another page daily and repost ALL of my essays ripping on the richest 1% and their corporate golden geese and defending the middle class in honor of those who use multiple IDs and/or bots to vote down my comments. CLICK ON ALL + SIGNS TO VIEW COMMENTS.

How do you like that you die-hard partisan puppet critics? What about you Thrasymaque? Was this the result you were hoping for when you started using multiple IDs and/or bots to aggressively track and 'vote down' my comments? Were you hoping to intimidate me? If so, I have some bad news for you.


Say that reminds me.

The CBO report I am about to make reference to breaks down shares of net American income by quintile. Since a quintile represents 1/5, the middle quintile would certainly represent the 'middle class'. But we'll expand further out to all 5 quintiles just to cover all bases. Keep in mind these statistics represent income AFTER taxes.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the lowest quintile dropped by 27.9 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lowest class? Damn near it but lets eliminate all doubt.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the second quintile, dropped by 23.6 percent. Does that prove the expansion of the lower class? Isn't it possible that the lowest two quintiles were always the lower class and the middle class had always represented just 1/5 of the US population? Well, thats what justhefacts would swear so lets eliminate that last shred of doubt. Lets move onto the middle quintile. The indisputable 'middle class'.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the middle quintile dropped by 14.5 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 3/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable proof that America's middle class had shrunk and its lower class had expanded between 1979 and 2007. Indisputable mathematical proof. Still, lets move onto the next quintile.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fourth quintile dropped by 10.3 percent. There you go. Indisputable proof that at least 4/5 of Americans lost their relative share of net income between the years 1979 and 2007.

Bankruptcy and consumer debt rose significantly during this time frame. By 2007, consumer debt alone rose to nearly $2,000,000,000,000. Thats NEARLY TWO TRILLION DOLLARS.

So we've proven the actual shrinkage of the middle class and the actual expansion of the lower class. We've clearly established a loss of financial assets.

So where did the money go? The highest quintile? Lets take a look.

Between 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the fifth quintile rose by 23.8 percent. Should we blame them? The highest quintile? Do we really want to blame a full 20% of the American population?

Not in my book. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top decile (one tenth) rose by 40.2 percent. Thats a 16.4 percent spread just within 10 percent of the population. Lets take a closer look.

Between the years 1979 and 2007, the share of net income for the top ventile (one twentieth) rose by 61.9 percent. Thats a 21.9 percent spread just within 5 percent of the population. Interesting. Now, lets take a look at the final piece of the puzzle from this particular time frame.

Between 1979 and 2007, the start of the Great Recession and the worst financial crisis in nearly 80 years, the share of net income for the top centile (one hundredth, top 1%) rose by 128.0 percent. Thats a spread of 66.1 percent just within 5 percent of the population.

But that 66.1 percent spread is nothing. It is multiplied by hundreds just within that top centile. The richest 1%.


Now, watch my die-hard partisan puppet critics deny the actual shrinkage of the middle class, the actual expansion of the lower class, and the actual transfer of wealth from poor to rich. In particular, the richest 1% who as of 2007, owned 43% of all financial wealth in America. Thats more than twice the share they held in 1976.

I see that my die-hard conservative partisan puppet critics and possibly another (Thrasymaque) who has admitted despising me more than any other user and using 'bots' of his own design to 'vote down' my comments are at it again. Be sure to click the '+' sign to view all comments.


[-] 0 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

Modestcapitalist...I still think you are full of shit.....BUT, the practice of voting down comments, is childish and stupid....I've had it happen to me, as well.....

there is room for all voices in debate, even those with as much disparity as your's and mine...

[-] -1 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

the thing about farming is all subsidies should end. and the corporate farms should be broken up. but the funny thing is farmers are rich even small farms. most are valued with equipment and homes at well over a million dollars. these guys are millionaires!!! farming is a complicated subject but the truth is these guys have a lot of assets and like corporations they do not save their profits to run their business which is wrong and large part of the corruption of the system.

[-] 1 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

Complicated my ass. About as complicated as prostitution and almost as old a profession. Farming was complicated 10,000 years ago, and each and every year has gotten easier for the farmer to make more $$$ with less expenses. The only reason the price of food has gone up instead of down like computers have is because farming is Financialized, there is leverage, market making, game playing bankSter bullshit. Same for oil, same for gold, etc etc etc.

[-] -1 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

oh yes speculators run wild. i know the corporate farms are satan but most people don't know most small farms if they were sold after debts would clear a million even really small farms are worth 500,000 or more. plus the fact that they hire illegal labor and force their children to work for free. but that is something different all together.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

If having a million dollars worth of investment in land and equipment makes you a millionaire, can I go out and borrow a couple of million and be considered to be a millionaire too??

You post is simply without merit.

[+] -4 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

you know nothing about farming. maybe if the invested their profits in their farm they would not have to take loans. you have no clue do you how much a lot of these farmers have. are there some small mismanaged farms with more debt than assets sure there are however there are far more that are millionaires. once again a politically correct hack proves he is as dumb as a libertarian.

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Get over it blackbloc. You judgmental attitude is way out of line.

I spent over 18 years of my life on a farm and still reside in a farming community and still have over 10 relatives operating farms today. I don't know who the hell you think you are but your ignorance shows with every word.

You see, you really do NOT make a profit on any farm until you take out a few loans. Suggest you check out the price of a new tractor. 1/4 of a million will get you ONE. How about a few acres of good land at 2-3,000 per acre.

Your use of "know nothing" and "have no clue", "politically correct hack" are insulting to anyone on a farm or anyone who might choose to raise a garlic plant in their window. BS BS BS BS and more BS

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

oh you want to buy a farm. because i don't know a single farmer who bought their farm and i live in tennessee. they inherit their property tax free from family (at least there is no federal inheritance tax on farms) and the get government hand outs that artificially inflate the value of their crops. all kinds of kushy tax breaks and government assistance then hire illegal aliens to work the farm and forced child labor some make hundereds of thousands of dollars of profit in a single year. yeah your right i don't know anything about farmers. lol.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

All you have to do is decide WHO YOU want to thank that you have food to put into your big mouth. You condemn the ones who provide your daily bread. What is it exactly that you do that someone with a big ego like yours would not condemn??

[-] 1 points by blackbloc (-19) 12 years ago

so you have no argument is what you are saying i know i am right about this. it's cool. are there some small organic ethical farms that do not exploit their labor but we are talking about 5% of farms.

[+] -5 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

Isn't that interesting. I didn't know that. So I guess all of the Vermont farmers who have gone out of business in the last two decades all left the land that had been in their family for generations simply because they had made so much money they they decided to ditch their family traditions . . .

from NPR

  • August 20, 2009

  • Behind that pure, wholesome, nourishing glass of milk, there's an insurgency.

  • The price of raw milk paid to farmers has dropped to its lowest level in 40 years. Dairy farms are going under across the country, and a few dairymen have grown so desperate they've taken their own lives.

[-] 2 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 12 years ago

There was a mini war against small dairy farmers by super conglomerates which led to low wholesale dairy pricing to squeeze them out of business while at the same time making it against the law to sell real 'raw' 'whole' milk, which, where it is legal, is quite a lucrative business (florida, etc), where they are fetching 5.99-8.99 retail and wholesale/GALLON !! prices.

Getting caught with raw milk in most NorthEast states is like being caught with c4 and a Koran. Who do we think lobbied for that legislation?

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

In what world are you living in?