95% of Family Farms facing ruin after joining the European Union

James Phillips92 said:I’m assuming you’re talking about American Todorica and his crowd—they’re definitely the ones who perfected the craft.

So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.

wearytrucker22 said:

rowdypilot19 Asks:
No lowlife is going to pull in those agricultural subsidies unless they’ve already inherited a massive chunk of land. And honestly? Nobody even bothers to ask you how much you actually produced. ☕

Look, rowdypilot19, you couldn't have been more spot on with that answer. If those massive billions in government subsidies had actually been handed over to us lazy coastal folks, we’d be sitting on 30 to 40 billion dollars in tourism revenue by now.

But they really were. Just look at how many tens of billions have been pumped into highways, shipping lines, shipyards, tax breaks for tourism, rebuilding cities along the coast—it all counts. Even now, the Department of Transportation puts maritime stuff front and center in their title, and the Secretary keeps saying that investing in the coastline is the top priority.

dustymarlin10 said:So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.

Sure, but he also planted a mountain of debt that our grandkids will probably be stuck paying off.

There was an agricultural machinery expo in Osijek recently. One exhibitor was bragging about how sales are actually up compared to previous years—which really tells you everything you need to know. For years, those pre-accession funds just seemed to flow straight into Walmart-sized corporations. Small family farms were left fighting over crumbs. Once we joined the union, politicians tried to keep that same momentum going. For instance, Jakovina attempted to funnel rural development money toward Todorica. He managed to pull some of it off, though thankfully he was eventually stopped.
I honestly think that’s one reason why so many small family farms are folding, especially in livestock. If you're trying to produce anything, you have to sink massive amounts of cash into equipment, plus deal with sales tax, income tax, and all the other overhead. Meanwhile, you're competing against a giant like Walmart, where the government basically buys their machinery and builds their farms for them—and they get to play fast and loose with income and sales taxes. How are you supposed to stay competitive against a setup like that?
This recent spike in machinery sales is happening right after the crisis at Walmart subsided. To be blunt, Walmart is a huge reason why agriculture in America has been struggling so much.

dustymarlin10 said:So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.

You're being misled even on the facts here. I’d bet my life that 99% of that subsidized land is actually planted. Just look at (the red box in the system shows it) how much land right around Washington, D.C. isn't even part of the subsidy program. Those owners can plant whatever they want on their property—well, except for cannabis, obviously.

wearytrucker22 said:The kind of rental you're describing pulls in maybe $60 to $200 tops in places like Miami or LA.
You can tell by my rates that I’m not running apartments—I’m running rooms. The price is high because I provide actual value (and no, I don't mean food). I'm up working for an hour before the guests even wake up, and I don't hit the sack until after they do. My workday is a minimum of 18 hours. Taking guests out to restaurants is work, too; I have to play host, translate, explain things, blah, blah, blah.

Midwest farming (for most people, anyway) is child's play.
Some guy plows 100 acres in ten days, sows his Wheat, harvests it, and collects his government subsidies. $75000 If he's unlucky enough for the crop to actually grow, he has to harvest it, haul it to the buyer, and then spend his time complaining about low prices and blocking highways.

First off, you need that 100 hectares. At 40 per acre, that puts your land value at $0.00 = 4,000 $0.00. On top of that, you'll need another million just to cover the machinery required to work it all.
And yet, you still have the nerve to claim some guy can take $5 million in startup capital, plant a seed, and then sit in a pub waiting for those $0.00 annual subsidies for that much acreage. You have vastly underestimated us and overestimated yourself.

James Phillips92 said:Sure, but he also planted a mountain of debt that our grandkids will probably be stuck paying off.

Honestly, if you think those farming debts are bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

stormyangler12 said:You're being misled even on the facts here. I’d bet my life that 99% of that subsidized land is actually planted. Just look at (the red box in the system shows it) how much land right around Washington, D.C. isn't even part of the subsidy program. Those owners can plant whatever they want on their property—well, except for cannabis, obviously.

Looking at what passes for "farmland" around here lately, I've got a feeling you're way off base.

Most of the old-timers around here would tell you straight up: we just aren't built for business. You need a solid work ethic, brains, actual skill, and a spark of creativity. But more than anything, you need grit. And around here? That kind of drive is nowhere to be found. It gets lost in the first coffee shop you stumble into on your way to work.

Out of all the local family farms and small businesses I’ve dealt with, not a single one has actually blown me away with their ingenuity or talent. On the flip side, there are plenty that have left a pretty sour impression on me—and some of them are even big names in the area. It's unbelievable.

The bottom line is that we're heading toward a massive struggle when it comes to building a high-tech, intelligent economy for the 21st century. We might as well start bracing ourselves for the crash.

James Phillips92 said:I’m assuming you’re talking about American Todorica and his crowd—they’re definitely the ones who perfected the craft.

No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.

I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.

Nicole Nguyen6 said:But they really were. Just look at how many tens of billions have been pumped into highways, shipping lines, shipyards, tax breaks for tourism, rebuilding cities along the coast—it all counts. Even now, the Department of Transportation puts maritime stuff front and center in their title, and the Secretary keeps saying that investing in the coastline is the top priority.

Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.

Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.

stormyangler12 said:First off, you need that 100 hectares. At 40 per acre, that puts your land value at $0.00 = 4,000 $0.00. On top of that, you'll need another million just to cover the machinery required to work it all.
And yet, you still have the nerve to claim some guy can take $5 million in startup capital, plant a seed, and then sit in a pub waiting for those $0.00 annual subsidies for that much acreage. You have vastly underestimated us and overestimated yourself.

Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.

A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.

And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.

I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.

If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.

rowdypilot19 said:No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.

I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.

Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.

Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.

Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.

A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.

And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.

I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.

If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.

Like I said before—the lion's share of those subsidies went to Todorica and his crowd. That's why everyone else sees their output tanking; a lot of folks are just giving up on production entirely, especially in livestock.

stormyangler12 said:First off, you need that 100 hectares. At 40 per acre, that puts your land value at $0.00 = 4,000 $0.00. On top of that, you'll need another million just to cover the machinery required to work it all.
And yet, you still have the nerve to claim some guy can take $5 million in startup capital, plant a seed, and then sit in a pub waiting for those $0.00 annual subsidies for that much acreage. You have vastly underestimated us and overestimated yourself.

People have been living there for over a thousand years and yet they don't own 100 hectares of land, so what exactly were their ancestors doing? If you don't have 100 hectares, don't even bother trying to play the farming game. It's like how in the Mediterranean Coast, the government either has no land or controls almost everything.

When you look at the coast, the government really only holds onto whatever they managed to nationalize. 😁

wearytrucker22 said:People have been living there for over a thousand years and yet they don't own 100 hectares of land, so what exactly were their ancestors doing? If you don't have 100 hectares, don't even bother trying to play the farming game. It's like how in the Mediterranean Coast, the government either has no land or controls almost everything.

What is wrong with you? What do you mean, a thousand years?

Don't you realize that under Communism—once they finished "dealing" with the small farmers—there were strict limits in place? I believe nobody was allowed to own more than, say, 25 acres. For an individual farmer, trying to fix that by buying up more land was an uphill battle that took decades, if it happened at all.

wearytrucker22 said:People have been living there for over a thousand years and yet they don't own 100 hectares of land, so what exactly were their ancestors doing? If you don't have 100 hectares, don't even bother trying to play the farming game. It's like how in the Mediterranean Coast, the government either has no land or controls almost everything.

Is it because you all just stuffed it into jars and hid it away in your houses?

dustymarlin10 said:So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.

How many people do I personally know who are out there collecting government subsidies while simultaneously letting ragweed take over their entire property? Let’s try to avoid making sweeping generalizations here, but I have to wonder how common this actually is.

rowdypilot19 said:No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.

I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.

Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.

Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.

Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.

A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.

And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.

I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.

If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.

Yeah, especially when you're looking at those smaller family farms. But honestly, I guess maybe he would have been the smarter one if he’d actually put those subsidies toward consolidating his acreage instead of blowing it all on some overpriced, shiny new John Deere tractor.
You really have to keep in mind that when you're looking at tractors, the actual age of the machine isn't nearly as critical as the total number of operating hours. I mean, if you have a solid, well-built tractor that’s been properly maintained, it can easily clock 10,000 hours without breaking a sweat. Once you hit that mark, you just perform a complete engine overhaul, and honestly, you're basically starting over again.
If someone manages to clock about 1,000 hours a year—which, let’s be honest, is actually quite a bit if you're putting in four hours every single workday—they’ll probably end up destroying the machine within ten to fifteen years. But, I guess if they only run it for maybe 300 hours a year, it could potentially last them forty years. Of course, that’s assuming you factor in all the inevitable breakdowns and regular maintenance required to keep things running.

Besides, any boss with half a brain is going to go out and buy a brand-new John Deere or maybe a top-of-the-line piece of equipment, but they’ll still insist on keeping that ancient, rusted-out relic tucked away in the back of the shed just in case some absolute disaster strikes. It’s honestly ridiculous. You’re right in the middle of a massive job, a warning light pops up on the dashboard of the new machine, and what can you actually do? You basically just call the service department and sit there staring at the floor, wondering where it all went wrong. Until the mechanic shows up, you’re stuck trying to finish the whole damn project with some prehistoric junk from 1975 that probably shouldn't even be running.

wearytrucker22 As I was reading what Paul Gonzalez10 had to say, I couldn't help but feel that...
You people have been living on this land for over a thousand years, yet you can't even manage to pull together 250 acres of solid ground? It really makes you wonder what your ancestors were actually doing with their lives. Honestly, if you don't have at least a few hundred acres to work with, maybe you should just step away from the farming business entirely. It’s just not practical. And don't even get me started on the situation along the Mediterranean Coast, where the government either holds onto almost all the land or leaves nothing for the actual people to use. It's frustrating, I guess.

Here we go again, just whining and complaining like usual.
I guess you could say that back in the old days under America, there was a legal cap on land ownership set at around 25 acres. Even with that limit in place, the actual average per person was probably only sitting somewhere around five or seven acres.
Even if you happen to have the cash sitting there ready to go, it’s not like you can just walk into any neighborhood and buy up land on a whim. It doesn't always work that way.

I guess I should probably start by addressing what was said in that previous post. It seems like we're circling the same drain without actually making any progress on the core issue at hand.

rowdypilot19 said:When you look at the coast, the government really only holds onto whatever they managed to nationalize. 😁

How exactly am I supposed to wrap my head around that? I mean, I guess there might be a way to look at it, but honestly, I’m just not sure where to even begin with a question like that. It feels like there’s so much missing from the equation that any answer I give would probably just be a shot in the dark, though I suppose I could try to piece it together if I really had to.
I can't help but wonder who actually owns all this forest land that’s currently being torched right before our eyes. If I had to guess, most of it probably belongs to the federal government, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't really matter if they aren't easy to work with right now; over the last decade, I guess they've actually become somewhat manageable.

bluetinker54 said:How many people do I personally know who are out there collecting government subsidies while simultaneously letting ragweed take over their entire property? Let’s try to avoid making sweeping generalizations here, but I have to wonder how common this actually is.

Yeah, especially when you're looking at those smaller family farms. But honestly, I guess maybe he would have been the smarter one if he’d actually put those subsidies toward consolidating his acreage instead of blowing it all on some overpriced, shiny new John Deere tractor.
You really have to keep in mind that when you're looking at tractors, the actual age of the machine isn't nearly as critical as the total number of operating hours. I mean, if you have a solid, well-built tractor that’s been properly maintained, it can easily clock 10,000 hours without breaking a sweat. Once you hit that mark, you just perform a complete engine overhaul, and honestly, you're basically starting over again.
If someone manages to clock about 1,000 hours a year—which, let’s be honest, is actually quite a bit if you're putting in four hours every single workday—they’ll probably end up destroying the machine within ten to fifteen years. But, I guess if they only run it for maybe 300 hours a year, it could potentially last them forty years. Of course, that’s assuming you factor in all the inevitable breakdowns and regular maintenance required to keep things running.

Besides, any boss with half a brain is going to go out and buy a brand-new John Deere or maybe a top-of-the-line piece of equipment, but they’ll still insist on keeping that ancient, rusted-out relic tucked away in the back of the shed just in case some absolute disaster strikes. It’s honestly ridiculous. You’re right in the middle of a massive job, a warning light pops up on the dashboard of the new machine, and what can you actually do? You basically just call the service department and sit there staring at the floor, wondering where it all went wrong. Until the mechanic shows up, you’re stuck trying to finish the whole damn project with some prehistoric junk from 1975 that probably shouldn't even be running.

wearytrucker22 As I was reading what Paul Gonzalez10 had to say, I couldn't help but feel that...
You people have been living on this land for over a thousand years, yet you can't even manage to pull together 250 acres of solid ground? It really makes you wonder what your ancestors were actually doing with their lives. Honestly, if you don't have at least a few hundred acres to work with, maybe you should just step away from the farming business entirely. It’s just not practical. And don't even get me started on the situation along the Mediterranean Coast, where the government either holds onto almost all the land or leaves nothing for the actual people to use. It's frustrating, I guess.

Here we go again, just whining and complaining like usual.
I guess you could say that back in the old days under America, there was a legal cap on land ownership set at around 25 acres. Even with that limit in place, the actual average per person was probably only sitting somewhere around five or seven acres.
Even if you happen to have the cash sitting there ready to go, it’s not like you can just walk into any neighborhood and buy up land on a whim. It doesn't always work that way.

I guess I should probably start by addressing what was said in that previous post. It seems like we're circling the same drain without actually making any progress on the core issue at hand.

How exactly am I supposed to wrap my head around that? I mean, I guess there might be a way to look at it, but honestly, I’m just not sure where to even begin with a question like that. It feels like there’s so much missing from the equation that any answer I give would probably just be a shot in the dark, though I suppose I could try to piece it together if I really had to.
I can't help but wonder who actually owns all this forest land that’s currently being torched right before our eyes. If I had to guess, most of it probably belongs to the federal government, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't really matter if they aren't easy to work with right now; over the last decade, I guess they've actually become somewhat manageable.

Fuel consumption matters too, and obviously the breakdowns. I mean, sure, luck plays a part, but most issues really come down to how you maintain things and whether you actually bother reading the manual. And honestly, people around here... I don't know, they're usually pretty bad at both.

how do you mean?
Whose forest lands are currently burning up like this? I'm thinking most of them are government-owned.
It doesn't matter if they aren't tillable right now; over the last decade, some of them have actually become usable farmland.

The land along the roads and highways is mostly private—like 90%—but all that inaccessible, worthless stuff out in the middle of nowhere? That's been state-owned for ages.

Honestly, you’d be surprised. Back where I grew up, there used to be some incredibly valuable state-owned land. Most of the prime acreage was swallowed up years ago by a state corporation—which, mind you, is private now—while the slightly less choice plots have recently been tied up in long-term concessions. We're talking permanent plantations here.

As for the whole maintenance issue, I couldn't agree more.
People tend to skip out on upkeep because they claim it's just too "expensive." They look at something like needing to swap out 30 quarts of oil all at once and decide it's easier to just let things slide.

James Phillips92 said:Like I said before—the lion's share of those subsidies went to Todorica and his crowd. That's why everyone else sees their output tanking; a lot of folks are just giving up on production entirely, especially in livestock.

That just isn't true. If you actually bother to look at the data on the USDA website—which they used to publish more transparently, anyway—you'd see something different. Generally speaking, small-scale farms pick up most of the subsidy checks, yet it's the massive industrial corporations that drive the bulk of actual agricultural output.

I suppose the big operations will likely walk away with a larger chunk of the total subsidy pool simply because they’re managing so much more acreage. But if you actually break it down by the dollar amount per acre, I guess the smaller guys aren't really getting shortchanged either, since everyone ends up receiving the same rate per acre anyway.

Noah Sullivan said:What is wrong with you? What do you mean, a thousand years?

Don't you realize that under Communism—once they finished "dealing" with the small farmers—there were strict limits in place? I believe nobody was allowed to own more than, say, 25 acres. For an individual farmer, trying to fix that by buying up more land was an uphill battle that took decades, if it happened at all.

The point is, people didn't even emerge from the Communist era with those 25 acres per family; they came out with maybe 5. And that 25-acre cap had been in place since '53—it used to be closer to 80 acres before that. Honestly, they didn't give much of a damn about the rocky terrain of the Mediterranean Coast, which is exactly why tourism ended up in private hands, especially on the islands.

Andrew Booth29 said:That just isn't true. If you actually bother to look at the data on the USDA website—which they used to publish more transparently, anyway—you'd see something different. Generally speaking, small-scale farms pick up most of the subsidy checks, yet it's the massive industrial corporations that drive the bulk of actual agricultural output.

You've said this a few times now, but nobody is listening to you.
Let's recap:
most of the subsidies go to small farms, while the bulk of agricultural production is driven by massive corporations.