Denying what you and others say is systemic racism, isn't denying it's existence. For instance, there is no racial discrimination when it comes to farming stimulus payments, consequently it's not systemic racism.

I'm not going to go back and forth with you on it. It's pretty clear you did a bait and switch.

A ~$9 Billion welfare gift going 97% to white farmers based on a formula that follows directly from prior discrimination advantaging those same white farmers is exactly the type of Institutional discrimination people, other than you, understand to be the biggest problem today.


It would be like providing to tax subsidies to people after Jim Crow ended based on who works in Management saying they were the most productive and thus should get that bonus cash.

IT is a perversion to give them additional tax for being the most productive when the reason they are the most productive is because they were getting prior gov't benefits.


It is all just a game. A game to deny prior benefit and make excuses to continue giving the same group the vast bulk of the benefit today.

------

Answer this for me IHIV or Lucky...


If these white farmers take that $9B and invest it in their facilities getting even more efficient, and there is another $9B bailout tomorrow, should they get 98% since they improved their output?

And if a year later there is $20B more should they get 99% since somehow, MAGICALLY they just keep getting better and better compared to their peers and thus DESERVE and have EARNED the bulk of that money?

Is that how this works and what fairness looks like?

Cupee, there's not a single person who doesn't understand the point you're making. You were just incorrectly associating the stimulus payment with systemic racism. You are not contending with that criticism, you just repeat the assertion.

Yes, when it comes to stimulus payments, the larger operators are going to require larger payments (if you accept farmers need stimulus to begin with). You think that's unfair.

As I pointed out before:


You focus on that 97% number, and it's deceiving you. This isn't an issue of race. Vast majority of all farmers get "stiffed". Not just black ones.

I don't think they are getting stiffed... Even the small farmers still get more than you or I ever will in government handouts.

Nothing is abt race unless it suits your agenda then it is all race all the time then back to not being abt race as you see fit

You are parody of yourself

When I first read through this lengthy back-and-forth, I thought the answer was no. But then I realized that there doesn't appear to have been very good analysis of the numbers here.

So using this:

And then this, from the article Cupepee linked:

It appears there's a pretty huge discrepancy. It's easy to look at the numbers and figure that white farmers received 97% of the subsidies, and black farmers are responsible for only 1.36% of the production, so they aren't far off. In fact, they're getting more than their production warrants! But, no - I think an important distinction is being missed. 3% of the subsidies are going to non-white farmers. Black farmers received $15 million, or 0.22%. 1.36% of the production, 0.22% of the subsidies. Just over 6x more share of production than subsidies. Sounds like a potential problem to me. Am I missing something?

The average payment to black farms was $422.
One white owned farm received over 1 million.

Hard to keep up with this thread so I'll probably just hit and run but before there was free flowing govt farm subsidies (50, 60, 70 years ago?) there were bank loans to help stay afloat?

I'm going to wildly speculate that 60+ years ago, loan terms and approvals were not level between black and white farmers in rural America.

Going to give that pesky systemic racism the nod here.

That said...Cuepee, your point seems pretty clear. But I don't get the unwillingness to discuss solutions.

Your argument seems to be that because black farmers were discriminated against in the past, they now have far less share of the production than they otherwise would have, since farms are handed down, and that this is a result of systemic racism. Story checks out so far. But...how is that solved? I don't think giving extra Covid relief is really a solution. As I argued in my previous post, it appears unless they are distributing by something other than production, black farmers got less relief, which shouldn't be the case. But if the relief lined up proportionately, I don't know if it's a problem any more.

If we remove all other factors, there is some logic that such relief would scale to production. BUT, are all farms hurt equally? Probably not. I'd think you'd want to try to target relief to the farming sectors and/or sizes that are hurting the most. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if said farmers were overly-represented (relative to overall % of production) by POC, and targeting relief in such a manner would help.

The link luckbox posted earlier seems like a better article to base fixes off of:

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/ne...althiest-farms

Are huge, profitable corporations getting help that could be better used by small farming outfits?

And are small farming outfits of POC (and others) being left behind or missing opportunities because they don't have the same resources that the big farming corporations do? If so, maybe that needs to be addressed.

That was apparently a big reason why a lot of black people lost their farms. Their does seem to be all sorts of systemic racism issues here. Which no one is denying afaict. The only debate is about whether the current subsidies are also/still racist.

OK. I'm not sure what point you're making, or how it's helpful to compare a single farm to the average of others.

Unless I've got some numbers wrong, I think I've shown that they are. Or at least, that there is an unexplained bias to the relief payments.

The 97% is meaningless.

Here's how it breaks down.

W1 = 10
W2 = 8
W3 = 5
W4 - the rest + black farmers (several hundreds) = 1

You remove the top x percent of farmers, the distribution is distributed equitably.

OK. I'm not sure what your numbers represent, but are you disputing this?

"Black farmers received $15 million, or 0.22%. 1.36% of the production, 0.22% of the subsidies. Just over 6x more share of production than subsidies. Sounds like a potential problem to me. Am I missing something?"

The argument goes, subsidies lower food cost. As with any business, economies of scale are at play. You target the highest producing farms because it's going to have the most impact at the customer level. Highly subsidizing small farms helps the small farmers, but the goal isn't to help farmers, really, its to keep food prices lower, and you're not going to do that by subsidizing small farmers.

Black farmers I don't think are 1.36% of production. The 1.36% is the percentage of black farmers. Two different things.

What I'm saying is, the bulk of the cash is distributed to a relatively small number of farms. Those farmers happen to be white. Simply analyzing the distribution of funds by looking at only the race, it misses this fact. I posted a stat that showed like 75% of all the funds go to the top x percent of farms.

Most white farmers are in the same boat as black farmers, but it doesn't seem that way because the bulk of the revenue went to a relatively small number of white farmers while the rest of them got left out in the cold.

Saying the stimulus is racist because the bulk of it went to a relatively small number white people, while being aware there are several hundred white farmers that benefited similar to the black farmer is just not correct.

Almost certainly there are going to be problems with the subsidies regardless of whether they are racist. Fwiw.

Ah, of course. Thanks.

FWIW, my assertion was that there was a bias that could be due to racism. However, one of the numbers I used was incorrect.

Yes. Farm subsidies in general and issues of big ag would make for a good thread. Actually, I expect there probably is one already.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/why-wo...orite-n1266448

Everyone knows the bigger farms get the bulk.

So lets break down your data:

- TOP big farms got 14% of payments (all white owned)
- the next 6% below them 61% (all white owned)
- the bottom 80% got got 25% payments (this group is white and 3% POC)


So by IHIV's own numbers he reads this and says it is not about a system of subsidy that unjustly elevated White Men into a position of power and a subsequent system of continued subsidies that ensure they stay in power.

I read that same data and it is clear that is exactly what it did.

This topic is not as difficult as IHIV wants everyone to believe.

Take any industry. ABC Industry.

- Imagine the governement artificially blocks anyone but White Males from competing.

-The governemtn then gives those white males massive subsidies over a hundred years to strengthen them

- The govt then says POC can now participate in the market and we want it to be fair

- But the gov't does not just stay out and let people compete, and even in this already massively tilted playground where the White Farmers enjoy all that prior advantage they still hand out more and more subsidies

- They do so by saying 'those who run the biggest farms will get almost all the Money (98%)

- So the gov't is taking money from everyone, including Farmers who are POC and giving it to the SAME white farmers to compete against the POC to add an ADDITIONAL advantage to all prior advantages


So you can just imagine Industry ABC has dominant market share at the beginning of the subsidy train. They get their first round of subsidy money (70% of it), invest it and move to 60% market share. That growth is rewarded in the next subsidy round, as they are now bigger still, and they move to 75% of all the subsidy money. They invest it in growth, and move to 85% of all the subsidy money. They invest it and are now at 97% of all the subsidy money.


That is EXACTLY how you Institutionalize Advantage. How you make sure no such as a fair and level playing field is there to compete in where the POC have a reasonable chance to fairly compete.


IHIV looks at that and says 'yes but they dole it out by SIZE and not specifically race'.

But he refuses to accept that 'Size' was first CREATED and RESERVED very deliberately for a single race and then once that single race had size they then ensured that metric was propped up and preserved.

You are incorrect, there is and were some black owned farms in the top 20%. You should read about the Jenkins family in Alabama. I don't really get why you assume there isn't or weren't any ultra successful black farmers.

There's 3.2 million white farmers, 80% of which are in the same boat as POC. When an overwhelming majority of the racial group you're saying got elevated isn't actually elevated, that's pretty clear evidence, you're full of s***.

But in answer to Lucky's point is it not fair to back up a bit and consider things before you break down the numbers if the goal is to determine if racism is still having an impact in all of this?


If today the gov't said 'Any White Owned Restaurants will get a govt subsidy of Billions" and those white owned restaurants used those subsidies to outcompete restaurants of POC and put most of them out of business.

If then we all decide that is wrong but the gov't pivots to 'ok we will no longer give the money to just White owned restaurants. Instead we will continue to take tax payer money and give it by Restaurant SIZE', with White Owned ones now getting 98% of all that subsidy as they have that size (market share) ...should we stop focusing on 'how they got big and how they are staying big' and instead just focus if they (POC) are indeed getting their rightful 2% as per their current market share?

Accurate or not to focus on if they are EVEN getting their valid share in the 2% I see that as missing the much larger racist abuse factor.

Yes. I posted a link that shows over a hundred years of gov't abuse and court rulings about how the various farming gov't agencies selectively gave the subsidies to White farmers while excluding all others.

I won't 'move on' because that is exactly what they want. They do not want to acknowledge or admit that this is EXACTLY HOW the overt racism of the prio age gets Institutionalized in the current age in a way they conveniently argue is FAIR and not maintaining a race imbalance (thus not racist).

Todays Institutional Racism is not about using bad words. It is not about using overt direct policy like in the past to exclude some and include another.

What is addressed by TODAYS instructional racism is how a system of gov't interference is in place that protects the prior advantages given to Whites in more crafty ways.



Just as TODAYS voter suppression does not target POC by their color but it is still racist. Instead they just look at key data and ask themselves 'where do POC live' 'What type of ID's do they carry', 'What habits do they practice" and then gov't officials try to make it more difficult in each and everyone of those areas to vote KNOWING the disparate impact will hit POC more.

I am sure Lucky and IHIV would say 'those also impact poor white people and thus CANNOT be racist' but they are racist.

But those who want to protect the current power dynamic don't want that to be accepted as that is how they use gov't to keep power and white wash what is being done.


Do you agree Lucky that the current subsidies have Institutionalized the PRIOR gained advantage and make it almost impossible for any competitors to break that in the way any normal business competitors would where subsidies are not being poured in?


This changes nothing I said in that post. If you want just read my post as 'Substantially and Overwhelming All White' which is accurate given the 98%.

Given the size of the industry-- 2.2 million total farms in the US. It seems doubtful that subsidies make it almost impossible for competitors to break in but I'd have to learn more about it and how they work.