Secondly, why the hell does he think that’s happening? What could be different from the 1920s to now?
Because everyone who didn't live in a city farmed back in the 1920s. It wouldn't shock me at all to find out he was accurate.
There's been a significant shift from rural farming to non-farming since the early 1900s. Farms have been consolidated (it's not just black farmers who have dropped in numbers massively) and it's amazing how little of our population farms now. We did have a small return to farming with victory gardens during WWII, but that's long over now.
First of all, I’d like to see the numbers on how many farms were owned by whites back then and owned by whites now.
It's the exact same tend among whites as well. That's why his statement is complete propaganda: it highlights one race while ignoring the overall trend was the same across all races.
well really this also had to do with the consolidation of wealth after every major economic disaster. think "grapes of wrath"
the thing is, the 1920s depression was intentionally created by a group of insiders for the purpose of consolidating the economy; or at least beginning to.
if you know how JFK became rich, youd know his dad was a mob-boss who was in on the whole depression thing and cashed out the day prior with other insiders. thats how JFK became aware of the conspiracy at an early age and probably why he was killed off. his family never experienced a depression, but amazing wealth.
look at NYC right now. whole point is to devalue the city/state to 0 and then buy up million dollar properties for a nickel, gentrify them, open up all the businesses and restaurants under their own banners, and actually take over the economy.
that is the point. thats why all the bailouts only ever go to the large corporations and banks who intentionally misuse them as bonus money and never to the small businesses that get wiped out.
if you wanted a true bailout plan, it would have to fuck over the 1% and aim more for the 10-20%. the 1% can bite the loss and keep only the property they have and still make profits -- just not GROW economically.
in my view it doesnt matter if the small guy grows instead of him, while he stays more stagnant.
if you bailed out the people they could simply buy back their own farms and businesses for less than their original mortgages.
Because everyone who didn't live in a city farmed back in the 1920s. It wouldn't shock me at all to find out he was accurate.
There's been a significant shift from rural farming to non-farming since the early 1900s. Farms have been consolidated (it's not just black farmers who have dropped in numbers massively) and it's amazing how little of our population farms now. We did have a small return to farming with victory gardens during WWII, but that's long over now.
It's the exact same tend among whites as well. That's why his statement is complete propaganda: it highlights one race while ignoring the overall trend was the same across all races.
well really this also had to do with the consolidation of wealth after every major economic disaster. think "grapes of wrath"
the thing is, the 1920s depression was intentionally created by a group of insiders for the purpose of consolidating the economy; or at least beginning to.
if you know how JFK became rich, youd know his dad was a mob-boss who was in on the whole depression thing and cashed out the day prior with other insiders. thats how JFK became aware of the conspiracy at an early age and probably why he was killed off. his family never experienced a depression, but amazing wealth.
look at NYC right now. whole point is to devalue the city/state to 0 and then buy up million dollar properties for a nickel, gentrify them, open up all the businesses and restaurants under their own banners, and actually take over the economy.
that is the point. thats why all the bailouts only ever go to the large corporations and banks who intentionally misuse them as bonus money and never to the small businesses that get wiped out.
if you wanted a true bailout plan, it would have to fuck over the 1% and aim more for the 10-20%. the 1% can bite the loss and keep only the property they have and still make profits -- just not GROW economically.
in my view it doesnt matter if the small guy grows instead of him, while he stays more stagnant.
if you bailed out the people they could simply buy back their own farms and businesses for less than their original mortgages.