About the Tractorazo

Redpossum said:
Ah, I see. I was being naive. Again. So they have modern machinery at home, but they break out grandpa's old relic for the tractorazo to look humble.
Click to expand...
The machines they use are too big, too expensive and too needed. They use small garbage for the show.
 
Quilombo said:
For God knows what reason, people go and cut open silo bags of grain and soybeans which get rained on and spoiled:

www.lavoz.com.ar

Denuncian un nuevo ataque a silos bolsa en Córdoba: afectó a 400 toneladas de maíz | Actualidad | La Voz del Interior

El hecho vandálico ocurrió en Las Higueras, según reportó la Sociedad Rural de Río Cuarto.
www.lavoz.com.ar www.lavoz.com.ar
Click to expand...
The field uses them to store valuable grain that could be liquidated for worthless pesos and exported so the government can screw the farmers on the exchange rate and taxes. The farmers use them to wait until the time is most favorable for them to export.

Dumb Folks aligned with the communists cut them to create fear in the farmers that their valuable crop will be spoiled and so they should liquidate their tangible asset for worthless pesos sooner rather than later.
 
1 hectare of productive farmland in Argentina averages $15,000. The average SMALL (yes, only small, not medium or large) farm size is 150 hectares, which translates to $2.25 million dollars.

The fact of the matter is that most of these people are likely millionaires, as even small farm owners own assets that alone are worth more than what 10 average Argentine workers make in an entire lifetime. I guarantee you these protestors aren't the farmhands.

The narrative of 'poor farmers battling against the evil government' is absolutely untrue by any objective measure. These are, factually, incredibly rich people in a massively disproportionate manner considering the relatively much lower income of the average person here. They could literally never work another single day in their lives, delegate everything to others, and live in complete luxury, as I'm sure we all know is easily possible in Argentina when you own an average of $2.25 million dollars in assets.
 
It’s one thing to have assets, it’s entirely another thing to have cash - especially when the nature of your business means it’s pay day only once or twice per year (meaning you then need to keep paying your running costs up against 50-60% inflation, after the government already helped themselves to a similar amount of your income.)

Anyway I can’t really say I have that much sympathy for all parts of the sector. Too many exploitative labour practices and too many heirs who didn’t actually work to buy their land and make it difficult for others to enter the market, BUT the sector is incredibly important for the Argentine state coffers regardless of who is in charge. If farmers have more incentive to hang up their boots and go live in Miami than actually work managing their farms to grow food (aka a negative or weak ROI) and start turning their campos into glorified country houses for occasional weekend outings, that’s a bad thing for everyone - especially considering the void of qualified investors waiting to take their place or buy up their land at market value.
 
antipodean said:
It’s one thing to have assets, it’s entirely another thing to have cash - especially when the nature of your business means it’s pay day only once or twice per year (meaning you then need to keep paying your running costs up against 50-60% inflation, after the government already helped themselves to a similar amount of your income.)

Anyway I can’t really say I have that much sympathy for all parts of the sector. Too many exploitative labour practices and too many heirs who didn’t actually work to buy their land and make it difficult for others to enter the market, BUT the sector is incredibly important for the Argentine state coffers regardless of who is in charge. If farmers have more incentive to hang up their boots and go live in Miami than actually work managing their farms to grow food, turning their campos into glorified country houses for occasional weekend outings, that’s a bad thing for everyone - especially considering the void of qualified investors waiting to take their place or buy up their land at market value.
Click to expand...
They cash at usd at official rate minus 33% but they have the benefit of importing goods at official rate and deduct 56% tax. It is normally planted with subsidized credits from the State, they pay (very low) salaries in pesos, most of the machinery is produced in Argentina (https://cyt-ar.com.ar/cyt-ar/index.php/Industria_argentina_de_maquinarias_agrícolas) so they have 56% cash back in taxes, they do not pay royalties because the most used seeds that are resistant to warmer/dryer weather and to glifosato/weeds/diseases were developed by the INTA for free (an State research institute ) & they are royalties free (this is how the production of soy grew 100%) and most of them bought the field paid in 30 years with less than 5% interest with Peron.
 
antipodean said:
It’s one thing to have assets, it’s entirely another thing to have cash - especially when the nature of your business means it’s pay day only once or twice per year (meaning you then need to keep paying your running costs up against 50-60% inflation, after the government already helped themselves to a similar amount of your income.)

Anyway I can’t really say I have that much sympathy for all parts of the sector. Too many exploitative labour practices and too many heirs who didn’t actually work to buy their land and make it difficult for others to enter the market, BUT the sector is incredibly important for the Argentine state coffers regardless of who is in charge. If farmers have more incentive to hang up their boots and go live in Miami than actually work managing their farms to grow food (aka a negative or weak ROI) and start turning their campos into glorified country houses for occasional weekend outings, that’s a bad thing for everyone - especially considering the void of qualified investors waiting to take their place or buy up their land at market value.
Click to expand...
The owner of a $2.25 million dollar asset could sell even a tenth of it and live in luxury off the money for 10 years in this country. If they weren't making enough money to maintain their lifestyles off it, they would sell it. The fact that they don't says it all. They have everything but want even more.
 
ventanilla said:
1 hectare of productive farmland in Argentina averages $15,000. The average SMALL (yes, only small, not medium or large) farm size is 150 hectares, which translates to $2.25 million dollars.

The fact of the matter is that most of these people are likely millionaires, as even small farm owners own assets that alone are worth more than what 10 average Argentine workers make in an entire lifetime. I guarantee you these protestors aren't the farmhands.

The narrative of 'poor farmers battling against the evil government' is absolutely untrue by any objective measure. These are, factually, incredibly rich people in a massively disproportionate manner considering the relatively much lower income of the average person here. They could literally never work another single day in their lives, delegate everything to others, and live in complete luxury, as I'm sure we all know is easily possible in Argentina when you own an average of $2.25 million dollars in assets.
Click to expand...
tell me you don't know anything about farming without telling me you don't know anything about farming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top