Essay about Controlling Corporate Farming

American family farmers produced goods for the global economy; however, after 1870, the depression struck the nation, meaning that the produce families grew for the market and economy would be sold for at a lower price. A family who had contributed themselves to the nation’s economy would find themselves in an event of possibly, and most likely, losing their farm since at that time farming insurance wasn’t available. Ownership of farms were not secure or stable during this time of depression.

In the late nineteenth century shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, farmers in the Midwestern United States found themselves in quite a predicament. During the second industrial revolution of the United States that contained mass introduction of: railroads, oil, steel, and electricity, the risk-taking entrepreneurs of this era took an adventure into the world of cutthroat capitalism. In just a little time, a handful of monopolies arose in all these industries which hurt both the consumer of the product and the producer of the material (Doc. F). Because of the corrupt politicians in Washington DC, the absence of regulation on the monopolies put into place by bribes and greed or moderation from them, and the devious ways of the

In order to do this, the new Agricultural Adjustment Administration paid landowners to take property out of production. What ended up happening was

Chapter 180 of Wisconsin statutes which became effective August 19, 1951 was known and cited as Wisconsin Business Corporation Law. Sections of law that were initially contained in Chapter 180 were moved into Chapter 182 and renumbered thus: 182.001, 182.002 etc. Wisconsin Business Corporation Law was instituted pursuant to Joint Resolution 16S, that was passed by the Wisconsin Legislature in May, 1949. The law was supposed to be accommodative to the Model Act that was authored by the American Bar Association in 1946 (Luce, 1952). This paper seeks to review the Business Corporation Act for Wisconsin and compare its provisions to the Model Business Corporation Act.

Though the regulations on big businesses had a positive effect on the United states, it seems as if there are not enough. Within large corporations that are ran not completely, but partially by the government, there was a huge gap created that separated the rich and the poor. In the 19th century, during the Industrial Revolution, the structure of the United States economy was transformed. Rapid advancements in technology were made, causing factory owners to gain wealth and prestige. These advancements had a negative effect on the poor because it did not fit their daily spendings or budgets. There are two different regulations set towards big businesses, which are state regulation and federal regulation. A state regulation does not include regulations issued by executive branch agencies, decisions of federal courts,

From 1880-1906, western farmers were affected by multiple issues that they saw as threats to their way of life. The main threats to the farmers were railroads, trusts, and the government, because these institutions all had the power to drastically affect the ability of the farmers to make profits. Therefore, the farmers were not wrong to feel frustration toward those institutions when the institutions caused the farmers to live lives of increasingly extreme poverty.

Pursuing this further, the rich soil of the West was becoming poor, and floods contributed to the problem, and, eventually caused erosion. Beginning in the summer of 1887, a series of droughts forced many people to abandon their farms and towns. As circumstances worsened, farmers were beginning to be controlled by corporations and processors. The farmers were at the mercy of many trusts, which, in turn, could control the productivity and raise prices to high levels. Furthermore, during the late 19th century, many farmers considered monopolies, trusts, railroads, and money shortages as evident threats to their lifestyle. The rise of these monopolies and trusts worried many farmers because they felt that the disappearance of competition would lead to erratic and unreasonable price rises that would harm consumers. Oftentimes, these “robber barons” would prevent competitors from reaching the markets by restricting their ability to transport their goods. In Document E, James B. Weaver wrote of the main weapons of the trust-organized commerce: threats, intimidation, bribery, fraud,

In the early 19th century, farmers saw the need to cooperate with government regulation. They started to believe the government could solve their economic problems if they cooperated as part of the system. When once they were known as the epitome of the American dream, independent, and self-sufficient, they now submitted to government regulation. This decision was made in the 1896 elections. As a result of this transition, many children of farmers left and found work in the city. When generations past would have stayed on the farm their whole lives, a new window of opportunity was opening up as the market expanded.

In the late nineteenth century, many American farmers were experiencing economic insecurity. There were various factors that contributed to why farmers were facing financial hardships in this particular time frame. The fundamental factors were the commercialization, overproduction, and mechanization of agriculture. These factors are by no means all of the driving forces that lead to this time of financial insecurity, but they are large contributors to say the least. After the Civil War, subsistence farming was gradually morphing into commercialized farming. Instead of farming to support oneself or one's family at a minimum level, farmers began leaning towards making large profit off of their crops.

Large businesses often can maneuver their way through the system very well due to the extremely large amounts of money then have. These companies have been known to use harmful production techniques that destroy our national resources and in some cases our own citizens and are not legally implicated. In the case of “Madison v. Ducktown, Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co.”, a large mining company had been damaging the air quality, destroy the local environment, and made several properties unlivable through the system of their mining.

cause them to not see an increase in income. New England farmers dealt with overworked land.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) restricted the production of crops. The AAA encouraged farmers to not only limit, but also to “destroy their crops” in an effort to help the economy (“Farm Relief”, 2002, p. 10). While the government attempted to support unsuccessful farmers, landlords took advantage of the opportunity to make a profit. The AAA’s scarcity program allowed for landlords in the cotton-growing regions of the South to force sharecroppers and tenant farmers off of the land (Watkins, 1970, p. 193). As some landowners were outraged at the thought of ruining their produce, others went through with the

Alongside the growth of large farms, crops are being subsidized which leads to the prices of the goods being kept at a low price (Toews). For a family farm, this means producing a crop that is not cost effective which eventually drives the family farms out of business. Once these large corporations produce the crop, it is then shipped to the manufacturers

Growing up on a small family wheat farm in southwestern Oklahoma, I have experienced the harsh conditions of farming firsthand. The job that used to employ the largest amount of people in the United States has lost the support and the respect of the American people. The Jeffersonian Ideal of a nation of farmers has been tossed aside to be replaced by a nation of white-collar workers. The family farm is under attack and it is not being protected. The family farm can help the United States economically by creating jobs in a time when many cannot afford the food in the stores. The family farm can help prevent the degradation of the environment by creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the people producing the food and nature. The family farm is the answer to many of the tough questions facing the United States today, but these small farms are going bankrupt all too often. The government’s policy on farming is the largest factor in what farms succeed, but simple economics, large corporations, and society as a whole influence the decline in family farms; small changes in these areas will help break up the huge corporate farms, keeping the small family farm afloat.

When we mention about farm, most of us have this image of a vast green pasture where farmers spend most of their time herding livestock but that idyllic picture is just a thing from the past. Since the 1930s in America, small farms started to wither away, made way to bigger and highly mechanized factory farms. It all traced back to McDonalds and the booming of fast food restaurants (Food, Inc 2008). Fast food restaurants had become successful because they could produce tasty food with cheaper cost. Their franchises eventually made them a multi-million-dollars industry. Big business required big suppliers. Small rural farms cannot meet the demand for supply and they quickly fade away. Farmers were being replaced by corporations in