Republican Governor Challenger Ryan Cunningham Reacts To National Geographic Article

The Whistler • January 14, 2008

Ryan Cunningham, the radio broadcaster who is working to challenge North Dakota Governor John Hoeven for the GOP nomination in the coming election, has a reaction to the recent National Geographic article about North Dakota that has been causing a ruckus in the state posted on the reader blog.
Cunningham feels that, despite some “puff” in the National Geographic piece, it was actually pretty accurate. While I agree that North Dakota’s rural communities are emptying, I’m still left scratching my head as to why this is such a problem.
Certainly the people that grew up in those communities, and those that still live there, don’t want to see their hometowns shrivel up and die but the simple truth is that times have changed. Technological and social realities that necessitated a state full of small, close together communities no longer exist. These days things like cell phones, computers, modern agriculture technology and even faster cars means that fewer people can farm more land than ever before and do it while not even really having to live on the land itself. Not only does agriculture in North Dakota employ fewer people because it takes less manpower to farm, those people who still work in the ag industry can now do so while enjoying the increased creature comforts of living in the state’s larger communities.
There is no less farming going on in North Dakota. According to government studies the same amount of land is being farmed in North Dakota today as there was 30 years ago. What’s changed is that it takes fewer people to do that farming, and quite a few of the people who are doing it are choosing to live in the larger communities around the state.
Now maybe not everyone likes that trend, but it seems to me that the only way to fix it is to go backwards. Personally, I no more want to go back to the time when small farming communities were a necessity in North Dakota than I want to go back to a time before indoor plumbing. I understand the nostalgia for the era, but let’s not forget that our lives have improved quite a bit since then as well.

Tags: North Dakota News, Politics

http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Didn’t they put a stop to that by outlawing economies of scale in agriculture?

Great idea Kevin, I’d like the US to be a net food importer and going back to the old ways will be the best way to do that.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

please tell me where the inefficient farming practices are in larger farms.

It’s those short hours and three day weekends.

Plus I heard you guys only really work 7 months a year.

*sarcasm*

The truth is that the pricing situation in farming led to incredibly efficient farming operations just to survive.

Maybe this $9 wheat and $5 corn will change that, but I doubt anytime soon.
carrick

Robert108, I attribute it more to the problem the deep pockets have more influence on legislature than small ones.

Take the “reforms” to Florida law after Hurricane Andrew… most of the building irregularities were made by contracting firms. But the law as finally written actually benefited them and virtually locked out private home builders.

I’ve no problem with removing subsidies, which as I pointed out, favor the inefficient farming practices used by large corporate concerns. If this means they are forced to operate more efficiently but still stay in business, well I can live with that.

As to “hatred of corporations”. What in the world are you talking about? Like you, I’m merely in favor of less government meddling, let the chips fall as they may.
carrick

Whistler, by “small farms” I meant owner operated. Agriculture is one of those professions that works better with hands-on supervision.

My comments had more to do with how subsidies are allowing inefficient farming practices, mostly practiced by large corporate farms, to stay in business. Regardless of where one is on the big-versus-small business argument, that doesn’t just smack of socialism, it is socialism.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

Carrick, around here a farmer can farm an unbelievable amount of land with only a few hired men. I think my brother in law as farming 5000 acres with one hired man.

That just isn’t going to take the numbers we used to have on the farm.

I don’t see cutting the farm programs will encourage small farms.
carrick

Robert108:

our image of business bribing govt is funny to me

Who said anything about bribing government? People with money have power, which they exert through lobby groups.
carrick

Northern Girl:

Also – please tell me where the inefficient farming practices are in larger farms. I’d like to know as my husband farms about 5000 acres. If there is a way to eliminate inefficient methods, we are all for it.

I was really referring to owner operated versus corporate owned. Sorry for the confusion. I suppose “small farms” is a misnomer today.

Can’t really comment about ND in particular, but I do know for instance that four corporations control something like 90% of the beef production in the country. Now that’s big farming!
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I do know for instance that four corporations control something like 90% of the beef production in the country.

BUT, those four are still buying calves from small time operators who can do the cow/calf thing more efficient than the feed lots.
http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

Rob,

Even if subsidies weren’t involved, I think we’d still have people whining about the “death” of rural North Dakota.

OH, lets try it and see what happens.

Many years ago New Zealand got rid of all farm subsidies and today small towns and villages are resurging. So, despite your Economic atheism, lets try it.
carrick

OK, then this is your learned opinion.

I have a different one, based partly on my experience with the inefficiencies inherent in large bureaucratic organizations. Small technology development companies generally can kick large corporate America’s ass (which is why the large corps pay them to do the development for them).

In my memory, small farmers, even with the subsidies that large corporations get to grow crops, still acre-per-acre outgrow the big guys. Perhaps Gene or somebody a bit closer to the numbers could dig this up for a comparison.
robert108

BTW, I don’t consider the “disaster relief” political game to be an accurate comparison. Your image of business bribing govt is funny to me; what I see is govt bribing business, both through corporate charters and regulation that is designed to benefit companies in certain jurisdictions. Each Senator and Representative wants his or her own district to look good, economically, so that they can claim credit when it comes to election time. It’s the job of business to go where it gets the best deal.
robert108

General economic knowledge. I’m not opposed to small farms; I just don’t think they can be competetive, except for specialty crops. There will always be small markets for truly organic fruits and vegetables, but it will have to be carefully regulated. I’m not suggesting that we need any regulation at all, just that “organic” has no specific meaning. If you want to get a higher price for your organic stuff, it will probably have to have some sort of dependable certification that means something.
I have done some small scale farming in my life, and enjoyed it very much. I think small farmers can produce very good stuff, if they work at it, but the immense quantities of food our nation requires makes it what I called a “boutique” operation, unfortunately.
robert108

Carrick: It is a fact that farm subsidies were originally created to “save” the existence of the individual farmer. It hasn’t worked, and you might ask yourself why. It just might be that large scale agriculture is more suited to supply the demand in this country. For the record, I don’t buy into the hatred of corporations that is so common on this blog. They are businesses, and still must compete in the market. They have advantages and disadvantages(some of which you have already pointed out), but overall, seem to be more competitive. All subsidies should go, IMO. Everyone should compete in a market that is free of govt meddling.
http://www.valleydeals.com/cgi-bin/board2/YaBB.pl Kevin

What’s changed is that it takes fewer people to do that farming

Didn’t they put a stop to that by outlawing economies of scale in agriculture?
robert108

As to “hatred of corporations”.

I wasn’t addressing you specifically.

I would still like the answer to the question of how something that was originally designed to preserve “family farms”(farm subsidies) compete against large farms has become so beneficial to large corporate farms.
robert108

Gene: I get your point, but think you are simply wrong. Farming is especially responsive to capital input, and large scale farming will always be more profitable than boutique farming. I think the farm subsidies are intended to support the romantic ideal of the small farmer, but like almost all govt manipulation, it has had the opposite effect. Removing subsidies will completely remove the small farm, while hardly affecting the large scale farming at all. We might pay more for our produce, but will pay less in taxes, unless the govt greedheads just spend it somewhere else.
http://northerngleaner.blogspot.com/ Gene

wait a minute, aren’t you guys the all free enterprise all the time guys? Yes I am smiling. But, my tax ox is being gored here. I don’t want another dime to goto support Agriculture at any level period.

Cut it off. Stop.

Guess what, you will see the reversal of the dire situation. The Larger Farms and economies of scale Rob talks about will disappear along with the end of Government subsidies and guarantees.

According to government studies the same amount of land is being farmed in North Dakota today as there was 30 years ago.

I’m guessing CRP is counted in Farming. IT’s NOT FARMING, IT’s WELFARE

When agriculture has to become a free enterprise business once more you will be shocked to see the small towns revitalize. The problem is socialism. North Dakota farmers pretend to farm and the Government pretends to pay them to do so. Just like in the old soviet socialist republics.

That goes double for the Faux Fuel Ethanol.

Let’s have some of that libertarian small government zeal released in North Dakota. I would hope that Mr Cunningham in competing with Hoeven would see it this way and begin to tell the truth.

Agriculture is welfare in North Dakota.

Reversing this curse is not going backwards, it’s going forward once again. Continuing the old suck uncle sam dry politics of subsidy agriculture is going backwards and killing North Dakota agriculture and small towns that used to support it.
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/author/Anna/ Anna

If only we could bring back the days of outhouses, then North Dakota would be strong again.

*giggle*
Pomerdorgrad

If only we could bring back the days of outhouses, then North Dakota would be strong again.
carrick

Robert108:

Farming is especially responsive to capital input, and large scale farming will always be more profitable than boutique farming.

You have a reference to that?
robert108

Private citizens give money to lobbying groups to get their interests represented in a way otherwise not possible for them. You failed to mention that fact.
I still maintain that it’s the govt that bribes businesses who will bend over for them, with the promise of an advantage in the market. True corruption.
http://blog.whalingseason.com/ northern girl

Greetings – I hope a newcomer is welcome in the conversation. I read the post and the comments and just wanted to point out one thing and ask a question or two, if I could:

My comments had more to do with how subsidies are allowing inefficient farming practices, mostly practiced by large corporate farms, to stay in business.

I thought corporate farming was against ND law. Am I wrong?

Also – please tell me where the inefficient farming practices are in larger farms. I’d like to know as my husband farms about 5000 acres. If there is a way to eliminate inefficient methods, we are all for it.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

That’s a great point, Carrick. Ag subsidies do a great deal to kill small-time farming.

But even without subsidies I still think we’d be seeing these smaller communities emptying into the larger communities. It’s a trend that I don’t think anything will stop.

Even if subsidies weren’t involved, I think we’d still have people whining about the “death” of rural North Dakota.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Republican Governor Challenger Ryan Cunningham Reacts To National Geographic Article

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments