Major farm policy direction at stake in this election - Jonathan Coppess

The general election on November 8th will determine all members of the House of Representatives and 34 senate seats.

The next congress is scheduled to take up the next version of the Farm Bill. 

Elections have consequences and I spent some time talking about the issues with University of Illinois agriculture policy professor Jonathan Coppess. He’s worked on Farm Bills as a staffer and now studies them as we discuss in this abridged version of the MtoM podcast. 

Paul Yeager: Hey everybody, welcome into the MToM studio number two. We're gonna have a conversation for you on the MToM Show podcast today, I'm Paul Yeager. Glad to have you here. If you have any feedback for me, send me an email at Paul.Yeager@IowaPBS.org. That's Y-E-A-G-E-R at IowaPBS.org. Today we're going to get a little political without quite talking politics. So it makes sense. We're going to talk politics and policy and where the two interact and what's at stake at the election that's coming up here in just a few days as we have every seat in Congress up for grabs, as well as a whole bunch of the Senate, some governors and some other issues, and how they relate to agriculture across the ballots in the United States this year. Our guest today is Jonathan Coppess. He's at the University of Illinois where he teaches ag policy. He has a background in policy. He's worked on the farm bill from a senator in Nebraska. He was on his staff of Senator Nelson. We're also going to kind of look at how who wins will determine a whole lot about the way the next Farm Bbill is shaped. Will it be one that has more spending for supplemental nutrition, for conservation, for some of those practices that we could see. We'll lay that out, play that out and have that discussion with Jonathan. We're also going to just kind of go over some good old ranges and as always, I have to talk sports. We start first, with football.

Jonathan, I'd be remiss if I didn't start with sports, Bret Bielema's impact on the University of Illinois football team is what?

Jonathan Coppess: While he's doing a great job this season, we're I think we're ranked 17. Now, so that's that's been nice. Nice to see. Had some tough years here. Since I've been here.

Paul Yeager: The Tiger Hawk tattoo, not a distraction.

Jonathan Coppess: I haven't noticed it too closely.

Paul Yeager: He made reference to it. He has to make reference to it. All those former Hawkeye coaches do, but it is fun. But there is a lot of fun when it comes to athletics between states, Iowa, Illinois just doesn't quite have the same cachet as Farmageddon does. In, in Illinois, or between Kansas State and Iowa State. Right?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, I don't know. I mean, I think I think a lot depends on where you sit. And when you're sitting there. I do know, my my, my wife's family's from Western Illinois. And so their view of Iowa, Illinois is quite intense.

Paul Yeager: Oh, yeah. As it should be. Right. It's just to be. Are you an Illinois native?

Jonathan Coppess: I'm not. I grew up in Ohio. So a different kind of football intensity. Yeah. A different kind of football intentisity over there. 

Paul Yeager: Farm background?

Jonathan Coppess: I did. My family farms in western Ohio. Actually, dad retired. So we're, we're, we're transitioning now, I guess.

Paul Yeager: Do you have someone left there in the family? Or did it transition to someone outside?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, we're still we're renting it out these days? Yeah.

Paul Yeager: How did you go from being life on the farm? I know how my story goes, people on this podcast have heard it a time or two. How did it go? That you didn't stay?

Jonathan Coppess: Yeah, I was like to joke that I was pushed off the farm because I couldn't plant straight. That and I argued with everybody. So I ended up going to law school. So imagine that it's between between my incompetence on the tractor and my, you know, arguing with grandpa and dad, I think we all knew there's a different path.

Paul Yeager: You were encouraged to seek other fields, not ours. I say I was too good at planting tractors. I always got, found those wet spots. 

Jonathan Coppess: I kind of I'd start to nod off, you know, on those row. And then I always liked it when grandpa grabbed me during harvest, like come and ride with me for a little bit. I want to show you something.

Paul Yeager: So ag was was ag, the destination for law school, or were you thinking I'm gonna be this hotshot defense attorney or prosecutor?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, I don't know if I ever thought about being a hotshot I did as a kid want to go to Chicago and so my, I kind of had out on the horizon. I wanted to practice law in Chicago at some point. I came back around to ag actually when I went to D.C. and wanted to work on federal policy and so it sort of roundabout way. got back into it.

Paul Yeager: So that wasn't the intent at the beginning. It was a roundabout way?

Jonathan Coppess: Yeah, it was not the intent at the beginning, I was in Chicago for about four years practicing big firm, litigation, corporate litigation work. And kind of hit a point where I was like, this isn't what I want to do. So I had to go, I had to go in search of, of, of what I want to do. And I joke about that, too, you know, that being a litigator, was too honest and reputable of occupation. So I went into politics and policy, just to make sure I had I had scaled the lowest I could.

Paul Yeager: What about, what about policy was of interest to you?

Jonathan Coppess: You know, I owe if I were to look back on all the, you know, all the ways I went wrong, besides planting, not planting straight, I've always been just fascinated with history and government and politics. I mean, this also I blame on my grandfather, who was who was a county commissioner for a while and was like, you know, THE politician in the family. And so I still have great memories of of talking politics, grandpa, and or being dragged into, you know, he'd be in a meeting with somebody, and it there were no conversations that didn't eventually get to politics. So I just kind of had always this interest. And when I was in Chicago, sort of came back to me that I really think I want to be in that arena for a while and see it. And so I did, I went out to DC and then got lucky and landed with Senator Ben Nelson, from Nebraska, and got to work on the 2008 Farm Bill with him. And so, kind of thanks, things worked out from there.

Paul Yeager: Well, I was there's the movies, and I've known people that have gone to law school. There's idealistic views, when you're in law school about how you're going to change the world. When you went to Washington, DC, did you feel that you were going to change agriculture working on that Farm Bill?

Jonathan Coppess: I don't know. I don't know what I thought I knew I wanted to work on it. I don't know about changing things. I think he kind of I think I was more just wanting to learn and wanting to see it, you know, more than maybe kind of thinking about, you know, I didn't come into it like well, there's the policy, I think we should have or any of that I was I was really mean kind of true to form, I'm at a university now because I'm a geek like I wanted to. And I remember just sort of being the sponge, like you'd walk around the Capitol hallways and just kind of be, you know, looking around and thinking, Oh, my gosh, Lyndon Johnson's office was right there, you know, those sorts of those sorts of historical aspects. So that's really kind of where I came at it from was wanting to learn and wanting to experience it. And then as you go, you know, as you go through it, you obviously start to really think about okay, what what about this makes sense? It doesn't make sense. And, and you get in a lot of these discussions, and that's where they ideas about changing policy or or what might be not just ideal, but feasible, possible, and doable.

Paul Yeager: We are facing an election here in a few days, what has greater impact on policy, those staffers like you were, or those who you work for?

Jonathan Coppess: It is, I mean, elections have such a huge impact on all policy. And I think there's there's no understating the importance of it. I mean, I still, again, is sort of a geek of this, you know, I still struggle with with some of our low turnout rates, and the fact that more people should participate. So elections have significant consequences for policy. I think most staffers, and and I mean, it was an amazing job to be to be on staff and to be running around. So the boss kind of sets the, you know, the senator, the the chair or the rep or the representative, they kind of set the direction. And those are, those are sort of, you know, bigger picture kind of perspectives. And then a lot of the staff is you know, working around that and trying to move in that direction that you know, the boss may have pointed in or that the, you know, that the constituency is really is really pushing for or in need of, and so, it's it is a combination, and it really is, you know, member by member by member driven component. I do think that many of these members try really hard to represent their constituents or their understanding of where their constituents have needs. But, you know, the pressures that come into these discussions are are massive, and they are intense.

Paul Yeager: Well, in every two years staffs can change. And work can be undone but a staffer can go from one office to another. And they might get hired by somebody who's brought who, who wins an election in Illinois or Iowa, that might get a seat at that table that helps dictate it. And that representative or senator or whoever might not have that same knowledge that the staffer does, how important is that relationship to say, You're not saying, Hey, I know more than you, but you are,

Jonathan Coppess: You would never say that. It's, you know, that's the job. That's right, those those jobs can be can be lost very quickly. It's a detail issue. And you know, as a staffer, your job is to really get lost in the weeds and the details of these things. And then, and then translate that up, and make sure the boss understands, you know, the senator that the member understands, like, you know, and then they've got to have a level of confidence, you have to trust that you will absorb the details, and you will get lost in the weeds, and then it will translate and that you work through that. And it was a it was quite the learning process to do it. There. There are there were many days when I was surprised, I still had a job at the end of the day or the next morning. And, and, but it's also it makes it so much fun. It's such a great challenge. And such a an incredible, I found DC and Capitol Hill to be this this unbelievable work environment of very motivated individuals. I felt old most of the time, even older now. very motivated, very, very dedicated to what they're trying to do, and, but also know how to have fun with it, and know how to joke around and sort of, you know, work through difficult sometimes intense issues and be able to laugh about at the end of the day, or early in the morning. Whenever some of those negotiations would end.

Paul Yeager: We are again facing an election here in a couple of days. At stake is the next farm bill for, for rural America. Is that pretty accurate?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, the next Congress is scheduled to rewrite it the last farm bills in 2018. And it's scheduled. Some of it is scheduled to expire in 2023. There's been some changes, like the inflation Reduction Act, for example, has extended conservation policy for a much longer window. So that that is the expectation. But I think to your point, a lot about what Congress will do or can do that will be determined by this election, I think we have very stark differences and governing philosophy or ideology and direction and those things will have a huge impact on it.

Paul Yeager: Are there areas that matter more geographically where members come from and carrying weight in these discussions?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, Farm Bill, at least in my experience, and from what I've researched in history, farm bills are really regional, we have kind of this three part sort of Farm Coalition, we have the Midwestern corn interests, we have wheat interests in the western plains, in particular, and then the southern commodities, cotton and rice and peanuts. So a lot of foreign policy is sort of dictated by how those three interact or work together or don't work together or kind of the conflicts and negotiations around that. And then I think a lot about how that that coalition or that group of interests, then kind of our driving forces and getting a Farm Bill, particularly through committees, and then your bigger coalition really involves the Food Assistance Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has become it's always been very political has become much more partisan in recent years, and has been a huge challenge for writing the Farm Bill whenever there's this sort of partisan attack on it. So you've got the farm interest, you've got the low income food assistance, and you have conservation, which really is kind of a connective tissue between a lot of farm country and a lot of non-farm country because, you know, the impacts on natural resources like water, like habitat, and those sorts of things really come through the conservation title. So we you know, your average consumer may not know much about you know, the farm risk management programs like crop insurance, but they may understand even better that oh, here we are trying to preserve soil or or keep waterways clean and free of nutrients and, and runoff and things like that. So it's kind of it's one of the things as native farm though, they're very successful over and if they do reauthorize next year, it'll be 90 years since the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. So it's, it's been a nine decade run. That's pretty impressive for any legislation, particularly think about how many times Congress has debated it and fought over it. But really the success is sort of attributed to this ability to build this coalition and then maintain it through some pretty tough politics. But that also lends itself to very next question you probably have, which is how will this look?

Paul Yeager: Well, we'll get to that how it looks in a minute. Is it good to have this thing reauthorized every five years?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, I mean, I'm not a, I'm not an unbiased observer, I think it is, I actually think I think there's value in in this sort of reconsideration, and deliberating through some of the policies to the extent that we do and it doesn't get caught up in some of the other issues. But if we think about the changes in agriculture, and how, you know, make sure the policy can keep up with it, we think about some of the issues coming up that you would want to reconsider around climate change and Conservation and Natural Resource issues, for example. You know, that that may not have been the same conversation 50 years ago. So I do think there's value in it. I do think it, you know, it forces that that evaluation and re-evaluation. But it also creates no small amount of challenges. It is a difficult thing to move through the legislative process, even with a pretty powerful coalition, like we see around the farm bill. And, you know, there can be these tendencies to kind of get stuck in a mindset that it's, you know, it's better to protect what I have and to think about innovating or moving things along. And so we see those challenges as well. But the opportunity to do so is is, is significant, I think, and I guess important.

Paul Yeager: We just finished the World Food Prize here in Des Moines. And more than 10 years ago, I had a chance to talk to Senators Dole and McGovern, and ask them about their efforts and how the challenges were then, when it truly was a coalition of rural and urban because of the food and the farm aspects. That to me, was still lost on many people that you have to have the urban coalition as much as the rural to push this thing along. Does someone have more of an upside in these negotiations? Because when it say roughly 75/25, more food than food and fiber?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, I think it's a really good question. And not an easy one to answer, I think, much depends on the kind of the state of play in Congress on on this. You know, I think with this with the Food Assistance Program, in particular, with SNAP, it is an incredible it's just an incredible set of policies to help Americans eat. And so that is, even if, if we don't think of it as a farm support system, it is an indirect support to agriculture and farming because of the production of food and, and helping those who might otherwise struggle to put food on the table, be able to do so. So I think it's important to your point, it connects with with rural communities, where there are challenges with poverty, but it also connects locally. I mean, there are many, many SNAP recipients in rural America. In fact, I think, what we are seeing across the country with what has just been multiple decades of hollowing out small towns and jobs being shipped overseas or lost to communities that that are not replaced, that the poverty we're seeing in many parts of rural America is both tough, but it's also a reminder that these things connect not just with the city like Chicago, but with some small towns around where those big, open square fields are that are growing corn and soybeans. And so I think it's important across the board, as far as who kind of has the advantage? Again, I think a lot depends on the leadership in the Senate and the House of Representatives and the leadership at the committee levels. And we've you know, I think we've seen that, frankly, pretty painfully the last two farm bills in 2014 and 2018. Where leader leadership in the House of Representatives in particular made a focus on while 75% of the funds go to SNAP. So we've got to, we've got to start cutting things there. And that, you know, really, I think, misunderstands, misunderstands a really key part, which is more than 40 million, it may be, you know, 75% of the spending, and it may be $100 billion a year, but we're talking upwards of 40 million Americans and families who are getting relatively small amounts of assistance to put food on the table. And I think it's one of the challenges we have in our political system these days where we've gotten so wrapped up in budgets and, you know, comparing these bottom line issues, and we kind of missed that there are people on the other end of these policies and that there are differences. In a policy that serves 40 million versus a policy may serve only a few 100,000.

Paul Yeager: You're a policy guy, maybe not necessarily an election guy. However, let's put the two together. Is there a certain? I guess I don't put a certain party and charges one question, but a certain type of leader that could emerge in either one of these scenarios, if it is a red wave? Or if blue stays in power, on how maybe some of the questions that you just mentioned are answered?

Jonathan Coppess: Yes, I think what we've seen, again, using the most, the two most recent Farm Bill cycles as our kind of our example, or what we can work from, as the most recent history, in those cases, the House of Representatives in particular focused very much on budget cutting by Republican leadership. And when that is the case, obviously, the biggest budget item is SNAP. And so we sort of, you can almost see it happen, if we redirect to the, you know, to the budget, budget budget, how do we cut spending? How do we deal with deficits and so forth, then you just see it progress into well, then we've got to go after SNAP. And once you do that, it really complicates or nearly tears apart that coalition and then the votes that you need to get through. As I like to say that once you go down, you know, once everything's, you know, once everything's a budget issue, you know, it's kind of though, if all I have as a hammer, everything's a nail, it doesn't end with SNAP, I mean, they're going to look at farm subsidies, they're going to look at crop insurance and conservation, it becomes a sort of, we've got to cut, cut. And so it is a counterproductive policy discussion, a becomes very partisan, and it becomes, you know, very hard to hold together a coalition that is needed to get the votes in Congress. That's especially true in the House of Representatives, the Senate has traditionally been much less, much less, you know, sort of focused on the hard partisan sort of budget cutting exercise, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't come into play in certain circumstances, and they still have to negotiate it out with the house, they still have to find a way through the house. So I think that's a big part of it. You know, we watch for the budget, the real sort of budget focus, knowing how that's worked on the coalition in the past. And then this regional issue around foreign policy, you know, is this, do we see is that sort of a southern push from the chair or Western push, and it's a wheat issues or Midwestern, and so forth. And so you can kind of, you know, map out some of your politics based on on those two sort of big guideposts, if you will. But so much depends on the makeup of the committee. And you know, who not just who's holding the gavel, but who's the ranking member? And how do they, how do the members up and down the line look at look at the bill, look at the vote counting out on the chamber floor? And you know, look the politics back home? So I don't want to make it sound like there's an easy kind of like, well, this will definitely happen. But we have seen some pretty clear examples of what can go wrong in the last two Farm Bills.

Paul Yeager: Those involved in agriculture think it's pretty important. But does that issue resonate with the regular voter, in all of these congressional and senate districts, that this is something that I don't see an ad for Congress or Senate on my TV that highlights so and so will cut everything in the farm bill or will bloat it? I don't see it.

Jonathan Coppess: You know it is sort of thinking through history, I think the last time we can we can kind of pinpoint where a farm bill policy may have had an impact on the election was probably 1954. For at least from the arguments from from a lot of the players at the time. So it's not you're not likely to see any, you know, political ads really focus in on this. And I mean, that's just the nature of a 30 second ad and that sort of brutal skim across the top of things that politics and campaigning kind of requires. But I think it's this this sort of governing philosophy that that matters. Are we thinking about policies and programs in the sense of, you know, we talked about inflation, for example, and inflation, inflation, inflation is a big issue. Okay, the follow on question is, well, how do you address it? What are the things that that a member or a candidate are going or say they're going to do to actually address inflation? How do you view it, you know, if it's all budget cutting, while program like snap will increase in an inflationary situation because the cost of food that's used to calculate those benefits is going to is going to go up to some degree And so I think I think there are those kinds of guides or guidance pieces that you get out of your 30 second commercial, like, if this is a candidate looking, looking at some of the partisan, you know, budget pieces, then you can imagine that they're going to challenge with the Farm Bill. But, you know, I think I think we also, were also realistic about, I think, where our politics is, at this point in time, and we're not overly focused on on specific programs and policies. I mean, it's, it's kind of a different conversation. And I think that's, that's tough. That's particular for somebody, you know, probably spends more time than is, you know, mentally healthy in the in the weeds of policies.

Paul Yeager: Well, and I mean, I like to think of public media, that we get into policy, I mean, Market to Market, that's, that's it we've hung tried to hang a hat on is the policy discussion and not the politics of, but there, you can't say they're not tied together, because they are.

Jonathan Coppess: They are very much, very much tied together. And it's and it, it makes for good conversations. You know, I tell, like I teach students to this I talked about, like, part of politics is to disagree, and it's fine to disagree. It's where we kind of lose focus. And and, you know, the point of the exercise becomes just attacking and just sort of those, those less meaningful discussions may be for lack of a better way to describe it. So I agree with you. I think the policies play into it. I think you just, it's tough to get into those details in it in a campaign.

Paul Yeager: I just wish on your background, Jonathan, that you had more campaign experience. So I could ask you the question of well, but I thought on campaigns we're supposed to divide, because we're supposed to highlight what our differences are, not how similar we are. And that's the way because people I mean, there's a there, I get told this, I hear this in discussions at family gatherings that, well, those election people, meaning operatives or whoever, whatever title you want to use, they're only making a difference so they can put a wedge between you and them to differentiate their candidate. Am I wrong? 

Jonathan Coppess: You, no, I mean, you are correct, in the sense that it's a winner, like it's an all it's a winner-take-all system to sports. So you got to you know, you got to pick amongst two alternatives, or pick between two alternatives. And so that's, that is that is true. Again, it you know, I'm a realist, I know that nobody's going to get into these discussions the way I would like, to, but there is, I think what we see with this polarization and with the way that it transcends or goes beyond just a campaign, you know, season, and then really gets into how governing is is undertaken, then it gets a little tough, because, again, you know, I recognize that, that maybe my views aren't, aren't the same as everybody. But I think where we lose this art of compromise and negotiation is when we start to lose our ability to govern. And the idea that there's only one way to do this. So there, there has to be my way or the highway, and you see some of these candidates who who basically build their their platforms on, I will never compromise, I will never back down. And it's like, well, you're one in 332 million people. I have not seen any one person yet that has all the answers. And so you're going to have to, you know, get into the debate. And if you're not, then you kind of wonder why are you running for office? If you don't want to work with the other 534 members of the body that you're campaigning for.

Paul Yeager: When did changing your mind, because you saw, you learned more about an issue become a bad thing? It's because you can be labeled as a flip-flopper.

Jonathan Coppess: That that's that's a struggle. Yeah, we would we would hope you would, we would hope people would learn on the job and adjust based on what they learned. Yes.

Paul Yeager: We spent a whole lot of time talking about basically the red or blue discussions have made impact a farm bill specifically, are there specific races across the country ballot issues, ballot initiatives that are of interest? I mean, we always like to put together a list of things of oh, well see in Texas. They're electing an ag commissioner. In Iowa it's a Secretary of Ag. In California always look at their ballot initiatives. Are there any, across the country that have caught your eye this cycle?

Jonathan Coppess: Well, I have to admit, I don't follow the ballot initiatives very closely. You know, we see some of these, like California is a great example, because there's been a Supreme Court, or there's a Supreme Court case on the on the confinement crates for hogs. And so some of these ballot initiatives can really find their way from outside the state, and open up a whole series of discussions, but I'm not, you know, I'm not tracking any one initiative or anything too closely. You know, I think a lot of you know, we're gonna see some significant turnover, particularly the House Ag Committee. And so those will be, it'll be interesting to see who who, you know, from Illinois perspective, in particular, we're using, we're losing some pretty big, you know, somebody like Cheri Bustos.

Paul Yeager: Cheri Bustos, I was going to say she was just about ready to be chair of that committee, if she would have stuck around.

Jonathan Coppess: She, she's a great representative. And that is in the district my in-laws live in. And so you hear a lot about her. And so, you know, there's a lot of institutional knowledge, there's a lot of really good political kind of understanding about negotiating through these things, and working through these issues. So I kind of watch those sorts of races and get a sense of, okay, what might this committee look like. And in the House in particular, leadership's such a big deal, because it's such a big driver, you know, Senators kind of, can kind of work their own way a bit more in the process, whereas, you know, setting up the leadership, and how that is going to direct the way they think about it is probably as important to a farm bill discussion as, as anything. And so that's more what I'm trying to keep track of, there's a lot of races. There, it's hard to it's difficult to keep track of them all. And, you know, we have this this odd fixation on polling, and we both expect it to give us the answers and we doubt everything. sort of get lost in the maelstrom of it all.

Paul Yeager: What's the old term question, but verify?

Jonathan Coppess: Yes, yeah. Or, except, but verify or something like that.

Paul Yeager: You mentioned your students, I should allow you to say what it is that you do teach there at the University of Illinois.

Jonathan Coppess: Sure. In the fall, I teach a class on the on the history and development of farm bills. And I tried to use that as a way to talk about Congress and how how Congress has worked and designed to work and the theories about it. And then I get to, you know, get them lost in the history of farm bills. And how did we get to this point? And where did this policy come from? And so it's quite a bit of fun. I think. Most of them stay awake most of the time, I think so at least we get to that. But, you know, we tried to do things like simulate committee markups, and get a chance to just come up with amendments and vote on him and things like that. So as I'm teaching here, in the fall, in the spring, I teach a class on agricultural law, which which I always joke like, my, the two halves of my of my brain are the two two cells I have left in my brain, the policy side and the law side. And I tried to try to stay up on both.

Paul Yeager: Well, and but but they do tie together because again, who's elected can help determine what is legal what becomes a law that then has to stand up and challenges I mean, it go back to Iowa, we've put Ag Gag through 3-4 times. Again, California has put through set various things that follow Iowa has them Illinois has them. So there is ag laws there an ag law issue that maybe is up for, I guess, verification validation at the polling place this year?

Jonathan Coppess: An ag law issue. I think a lot of that gets picked up and other issues. So climate change is a great example. Where a member aware candidate is on climate change is probably going to determine a lot of how they think about property rights and environmental regulation and you know, Waters of the US type questions and things like that, that really come into play. You know, one of the ones that I've sort of on my my to-do list dig into and think about for class is around anti-trust and competition issues because we've seen this, this incredible. And I don't necessarily mean that in a positive way. But this sort of unbelievable at times, consolidation and industry, whether it's the input side, the food side, or even at the farm level, the number of farmers dwindling and its consolidated size and the industry. So I've been thinking about for a couple of semesters now like okay, how do I how do I even begin tackling that issue? But it's a great example like where do candidates know how many candidates are talking about antitrust law. I mean, that's, that seems like ancient topics. But it's pretty important on the ground, it's really important to a farmer who's maybe looking at one or two options for seed and for inputs. And so it's on my list, I want to I want to delve into that more. And then I think, you know, to your point is like, sort of what's the how do you link that with governing philosophies, and an idea of competition, I think, is really fascinating to talk about. Because, you know, we get sometimes lost in thinking about it. You know, competition requires rules that requires for you know, nobody wants to watch a football game that doesn't have referees on the field and kind of keep, keep, keep the wheels on the competition. And so we have to think about the same thing in our marketplace in our in our corporate and legal settings. And how we design those rules, how we enforce those rules, I'm very fascinated by just haven't figured out how to how to quite turn that into a set of class material that students might be interested in. But those I think, are gonna be big questions going forward, because we, because of the consolidation, because of how that consolidation is playing out. You know, everything from jobs and local opportunities, all the way up to, you know, the water quality issues and climate change. You know, one of the things that we talked about around climate changes, What could these things? How could these impact? If you'll have a few players out there? And how are they going to treat it? And who's going to benefit? And how does that translate back into healthy competition for for these outcomes? So we'll see. Maybe we talking to spring, if I figured out what I wanted to do in class next year?

Paul Yeager: Well, I look at the let the free market, or the market itself works itself out, or it decides some of these issues. And I'll just leave you with this, Jonathan, that look at packer margins. And we, how much competition have we talked about, there's no competition in the place with only four big, three big packers, packer margins, and six months to eight months ago, they've all but evaporated and gone neutral versus all in favor. And this is while there's been several policies discussed and laws, we're trying to work out a new law that can help you can't even get members of the Republican Senate to agree upon what they think is best for the cattle industry, let alone a Democrat involved in that discussion. So in that sense, you could say, well, you don't need a law. The market's worked itself out.

Jonathan Coppess: Maybe, maybe, again, I think any competition is going to require good rules and enforcement of those rules to make sure that and I you know, and maybe I go crossways, with my economist colleagues on this a little bit, I think the market is itself, it's not an entity that's outside of it. And we also want to control that market, because it is part of, you know, our society and our system of government, everything else. And so, you know, free market. Yes, to an extent, we're also competing on a world stage with many markets that aren't free. And so we have to think about that competition. And you know, how consumer demand makes its way back through that market to your point on packers. I mean, that's a that is one of those just incredibly tough issues that you will not, there are not simple solutions, and it can cross party lines, we can really complicate a lot of the politics around around these issues. And sorry for the chimes in the background. We're on campus. 

Paul Yeager: That means it's the end of the interview, which...

Jonathan Coppess: I guess we're getting close to that. I'm saved by the bell there on talking too much about packer margins.

Paul Yeager: We'll save that for another episode.

Jonathan Coppess: I have my homework to do on that topic. There's no doubt about it. 

Paul Yeager: Well, we all do. And it is and I guess I think what you're saying is if it was easy, I think we would have had something by now it is incredibly hard to work through.

Jonathan Coppess: It is. No it is, it is without a doubt. And it is you know even we think about oil and an oil markets and competition. And we watch something like OPEC Plus, you know, jump in at its own whim, to change those sort of things. And that works its way through the whole system packers as well, the tight margins one day or look like profit taking the next and thinking through not just how that competition works for the farmer for the consumer, but for the industry itself. You know, is it healthy to have only a few, a few big players working through that. Well, and if it's not, how do you how do you go about changing without causing even greater disruptions or problems? The law of unintended consequences? Yeah, yeah.

Paul Yeager: Alight Jonathan, I gotta let you get back to class. I appreciate the time. 

Jonathan Coppess: Absolutely, it's great to talk to you.

Paul Yeager: Thank you so much, Jonathan Coppess, University of Illinois. Thank you. 

New episodes of The MToM come out each and every Tuesday, subscribe via YouTube. If you want to see the video or audio if you just want to hear it and take us along. We always appreciate however you consume this content if you have feedback for us MarkettoMarket@IowaPBS.org. And we haven't asked for comments in a while. So if you have something you want us to know, you can leave those in the comments there. And we'll get back to you. Thank you, and we'll see you next time.

Contact: Paul.Yeager@iowapbs.org