The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on February 20, 2009, 08:59:18 AM
-
bulloney (1000+ posts) Fri Feb-20-09 06:50 AM
Original message
Here's what's keeping us from being in another Great Depression now.
80 years ago, the GD was preceded by depressing farm commodity prices.
Today, farm prices are relatively strong, but for how long? If and when we get back to $2/bushel corn, $2/bushel wheat, $5/bushel soybeans and corresponding prices in livestock, the economic shit will hit the fan.
You can only create new wealth from a few things and agriculture is one of them. Not these ponzi pyramid schemes they've concocted on Wall Street. If producers of agriculture and other raw materials are receiving a fair price for their products the multiplier effect is tremendous. Right now, grain prices are relatively strong. But if and when we return to the depressed prices of the 1990s, this multiplier effect will be stifled and we'll really be thrown for a loss economically.
Just my two cents worth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5096057
-
The baloney primitive didn't factor in ( because it hasn't figured out) we're getting ready to hit some hyper-inflation thanks to B. Hussein and his pork laws.
.
-
Changes in Farms, Farm Households, and Rural Communities Across the Century
American agriculture and rural life underwent a tremendous transformation in the 20th century. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce, along with 22 million work animals, and produced an average of five different commodities. The agricultural sector of the 21st century, on the other hand, is concentrated on a small number of large, specialized farms in rural areas where less than a fourth of the U.S. population lives. These highly productive and mechanized farms employ a tiny share of U.S. workers and use 5 million tractors in place of the horses and mules of earlier days.
As a result of this transformation, U.S. agriculture has become increasingly efficient and has contributed to the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Output from U.S. farms has grown dramatically, allowing consumers to spend an increasingly smaller portion of their income on food and freeing a large share of the population to enter nonfarm occupations that have supported economic growth and development. As a part of the transformation spurred by technological innovation and changing market conditions, production agriculture has become a smaller player in the national and rural economies. While the more broadly defined food and agriculture sector continues to play a strong role in the national economy, farming has progressively contributed a smaller share of gross domestic product (GDP) and employed a smaller share of the labor force over the course of the century (see “Farming’s changing role in the Nation’s economyâ€).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm
-
The baloney primitive didn't factor in ( because it hasn't figured out) we're getting ready to hit some hyper-inflation thanks to B. Hussein and his pork laws.
.
Naw, they are just trying to figure out how to lay the ground work to blame failure of the Stimulpork Bill on something other than 'O'.
KC
-
This has to be a joke.
I work for an ag equipment dealership and the milk price to the dairy farmers is several dollars below production costs.
They are looking at a dire year financially.
This isn`t a grain area but they have said that the corn farmers are leaving the corn from last year in the bins because the price is so low they would rather sit on it and hope for a rebound then sell it and realize the loss.
These folks at the DUmp don`t know jack s##t about anything.
-
Farming’s changing role in the Nation’s economy
1900 41 percent of workforce employed in agriculture
1930 21.5 percent of workforce employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 7.7 percent
1945 16 percent of the total labor force employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 6.8 percent
1970 4 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 2.3 percent
2000/02 1.9 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture (2000); Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP (2002), 0.7 percent
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA. Share of workforce employed in agricul ture, for 1900-1970, Historical Statistics of the United States; for 2000, calculated using data from Census of Population; agricultural GDP as part of total GDP, calculated using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
-
This has to be a joke.
I work for an ag equipment dealership and the milk price to the dairy farmers is several dollars below production costs.
They are looking at a dire year financially.
This isn`t a grain area but they have said that the corn farmers are leaving the corn from last year in the bins because the price is so low they would rather sit on it and hope for a rebound then sell it and realize the loss.
These folks at the DUmp don`t know jack s##t about anything.
True.......I visit some farming/implement sites and I see farmers discussing this. Some can't plant due to not having sold last years crop yet. Some sold and haven't been paid due to 'alcohol' plants declaring bankruptcy. Others can't borrow money to plant due to the credit crunch......and it just goes on and on.
When the DUmmies get hungary, Stalin will step in.
-
Naw, they are just trying to figure out how to lay the ground work to blame failure of the Stimulpork Bill on something other than 'O'.
KC
I mentioned what I did because I've only seen a few primitives, less than an handfull, even talk about inflation with all the money being pumped into the economy. The majority of them haven't even considered it. Of course when it does occur, they'll claim they were the first to discuss it in length way back when. :whatever:
.
-
This DUmmy is apparently unaware of the agribusiness.
It thinks that all our food comes from little 30 acre mom and pop farms.
Oh they're aware alright.
There is some evidence that they want large commercial farms split into ma'n'pa operations, or communal farms.
-
Oh they're aware alright.
There is some evidence that they want large commercial farms split into ma'n'pa operations, or communal farms.
Production costs have made sure the days of the little farmer are gone.
-
Oh they're aware alright.
There is some evidence that they want large commercial farms split into ma'n'pa operations, or communal farms.
So, we've gone from everybody gets a free pony, to 40 acres and a mule, huh?
-
So, we've gone from everybody gets a free pony, to 40 acres and a mule, huh?
along with a market quota to fill and send to the government for 'spreading the wealth'.
When they can't make their qouta, the government will take over their farm.
The governement will send someone from Moskow Washington to grow the crops.
They won't know how and so will fail.
Ask the Ukrainians how well that plan worked for them.
-
Farming’s changing role in the Nation’s economy
1900 41 percent of workforce employed in agriculture
1930 21.5 percent of workforce employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 7.7 percent
1945 16 percent of the total labor force employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 6.8 percent
1970 4 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 2.3 percent
2000/02 1.9 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture (2000); Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP (2002), 0.7 percent
Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA. Share of workforce employed in agricul ture, for 1900-1970, Historical Statistics of the United States; for 2000, calculated using data from Census of Population; agricultural GDP as part of total GDP, calculated using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
I know the percentages are "work force", but let's look at the numbers of over all population.
In 1900, the population of the USA was 76,000,000. 41% of that number is 31,116,000. It took a lot of folks to feed a few.
In 2002, the estimated population was 280,000,000. 2% of that number is 5,600,000. Amazing isn't it?
-
along with a market quota to fill and send to the government for 'spreading the wealth'.
When they can't make their qouta, the government will take over their farm.
The governement will send someone from Moskow Washington to grow the crops.
They won't know how and so will fail.
Ask the Ukrainians how well that plan worked for them.
I've read about the horrors of the "Great Famine".....but DUmmies are used to eating their young.
-
I know the percentages are "work force", but let's look at the numbers of over all population.
In 1900, the population of the USA was 76,000,000. 41% of that number is 31,116,000. It took a lot of folks to feed a few.
In 2002, the estimated population was 280,000,000. 2% of that number is 5,600,000. Amazing isn't it?
Thankfully, most of them are conservative and own weapons. A few of us shall eat.
-
Thankfully, most of them are conservative and own weapons. A few of us shall eat.
:cheersmate: