Trump just doesn’t go away…..

[fasttwitch]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ShareMarketupdates/s/KUmGGqy68T

Farmers pleading for Trump to help.

I'm torn on this. Part of me feels for the MAGA people betrayed by Trump. These farmers and manufacturing workers whose lives are being upended by Trump's reckless policies.

Another part is feels like, well, they asked for it.

In the end any American losing their livelihood is tragic. Families are suffering. Why did they not see this coming?

My own little first hand experience of how bad the economy is watching my credit card chargebacks spike. This started in 2024 and is going up fast. For comparison, I had 4 times as many chargebacks in 2024 as 2023. But in 2025 so far chargebacks are ALREADY TWICE 2024 and we are not through the year. People are desperate.

 

[Iron1]

Force famers out of business
Huge swaths of land sold off
Ultra wealthy buy it up for pennies on the dollar
Big tax cuts for new corpo-farmer buddies
Heavily subsidize operations with taxpayer dollars
Paid workers being replaced with unpaid detained immigrants
Privatized profits, socialized losses

Turbocharged wealth consolidation.

 

[Wilson6]

I do think this will likely negatively impact some of the activities we partake of here amongst ourselves.

Very likely as it will bring greater scrutiny of packages that are either trying to evade a tariff or contains narcotics or precursors, the primary goal. Collateral damage is PEDs, peptides, etc.

 

[tommyguns2]

I will point out that tax payer money, that comes out of every pocket, yours and mine, has funded much of the research which has lead to medical advancements at current, both techniques and pharmaceuticals, I would think providing healthcare should also come with that.

Why pay for research that we then have to pay again at a premium to utilize? If we use the NIH budget as a guide, 48 billion dollars of tax payer dollars, that's quite a bit, there is other research dollars that come from DARPA/DOD, HHS, etc so I imagine its ALOT more than just the 48bil.

It's my understanding that most of the NIH research funding is directed toward more basic research that is not immediately able to be commercialized. That's the whole point of the gov't funding for that research. If the funding were instead for a commercial therapeutic (or tool, etc.) that was relatively close to commercialization, there is ample funding for such development in the commercial markets (VC, angel investors, etc.)

I've got a good friend of mine who does cancer research as CWRU. She's fairly well recognized in her field, and yet of all the things she's worked on, I don't think any of it has been commercialized as it's pretty far upstream of a commercialization effort.

One thing that Trump did that he got pissed on for (unfairly IMO) was his renegotiation of NIH contracts with all the research universities to cap the administrative fee associated with various grants at 15%. Previously, while a university like CWRU or Johns Hopkins would receive a $15 million research grant, up to 40% of that grant money went to administrative overhead and the remaining amount went to the actual research team that put together the grant proposal and is doing the research. At the same time, the same universities would get grant money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, and in those contracts their administrative overhead fee was limited to 15%.

So Trump was not cutting the amount of grants that NIH was sending out to universities, it was limiting the amount of $$$ of those grants that could get siphened off for bloated university administration budgets. That seemed pretty reasonable to me.

 

[JackD]

It's my understanding that most of the NIH research funding is directed toward more basic research that is not immediately able to be commercialized. That's the whole point of the gov't funding for that research. If the funding were instead for a commercial therapeutic (or tool, etc.) that was relatively close to commercialization, there is ample funding for such development in the commercial markets (VC, angel investors, etc.)

I've got a good friend of mine who does cancer research as CWRU. She's fairly well recognized in her field, and yet of all the things she's worked on, I don't think any of it has been commercialized as it's pretty far upstream of a commercialization effort.

One thing that Trump did that he got pissed on for (unfairly IMO) was his renegotiation of NIH contracts with all the research universities to cap the administrative fee associated with various grants at 15%. Previously, while a university like CWRU or Johns Hopkins would receive a $15 million research grant, up to 40% of that grant money went to administrative overhead and the remaining amount went to the actual research team that put together the grant proposal and is doing the research. At the same time, the same universities would get grant money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, and in those contracts their administrative overhead fee was limited to 15%.

So Trump was not cutting the amount of grants that NIH was sending out to universities, it was limiting the amount of $$$ of those grants that could get siphened off for bloated university administration budgets. That seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Since I have clients that are directly affected by policies and these changes. You are correct but also incorrect in saying that the money was spent incorrectly and bloated spending. The money is used and spent on lab facilities and core facilities that are performing the experiments that that the grant was intended for. The costs are considered indirect. And when I say core facilities, take a list of all of them. Animal facilities, Chemistry, electron Microscopy, Tissue, Genomics. Helps pay for those staff members and maintenance of equipment that are running those facilities and helping with part of the work.

So one of my clients that runs one of the core labs at the NIH research facility, all of them are at risk of losing their jobs. For example, if you don’t have a Pathology core helping with animal research and helping the grant holder with interpreting the results. Then where does that leave cancer research? Or any research.

 

[tommyguns2]

Since I have clients that are directly affected by policies and these changes. You are correct but also incorrect in saying that the money was spent incorrectly and bloated spending. The money is used and spent on lab facilities and core facilities that are performing the experiments that that the grant was intended for. The costs are considered indirect. And when I say core facilities, take a list of all of them. Animal facilities, Chemistry, electron Microscopy, Tissue, Genomics. Helps pay for those staff members and maintenance of equipment that are running those facilities and helping with part of the work.

So one of my clients that runs one of the core labs at the NIH research facility, all of them are at risk of losing their jobs. For example, if you don’t have a Pathology core helping with animal research and helping the grant holder with interpreting the results. Then where does that leave cancer research? Or any research.

And yet those universities were happy to take the private foundation grant money with admin overhead limited to 15%. How were they able to do that with private foundations, yet required 2-3X more as a percentage for the gov't research grants?

My friend doesn't overhaul her cancer research lab every year with new equipment. Only at a university will you have an Assistant Vice Chancellor for Strategic Partnerships and Community Engagement, or a Special Assistsant to the Vice President of Research Affairs. The actual researchers at these universities are doing valuable work. The administrative regime "supporting" the researchers aren't doing jack squat.

I think some of these researchers should consider a different business model. Form a 501(c)(3) private lab and write grant proposals to the NIH. Get seed money from the private foundations. They avoid all the university nonsense, and actually get to spend most of their time doing their research. In the old days, being faculty at Harvard helped you get the NIH grant. Today, being Harvard faculty might hurt your grant application prospects. What does the university add in terms of actual value to the research?

 

[Iron1]

Force famers out of business
Huge swaths of land sold off
Ultra wealthy buy it up for pennies on the dollar
Big tax cuts for new corpo-farmer buddies
Heavily subsidize operations with taxpayer dollars
Paid workers being replaced with unpaid detained immigrants
Privatized profits, socialized losses

Turbocharged wealth consolidation.

Acre Trader is a company that lets investors buy up failing farms by selling them off in fractional acres. The strike deals with Farmers to take over their farm for 5-10 years handling all administration and property management. After 5-10 years they sell off the underlying property.

About Us | AcreTrader

AcreTrader is providing investors direct access to the highly attractive asset class of farmland. Learn more about our mission, team, and board of directors.

acretrader.com

They got their start back in 2021 funded through venture capitalists, one of which being Narya Capital.

AcreTrader gets $12m Series A funding for farmland investing & purchasing platform

Through AcreTrader, investors can add farmland to their portfolios - while farmers can get financial assistance to purchase new land or infrastructure.

agfundernews.com

Narya Capital was co-founded by JD Vance. He still maintains financial stake in Narya.

Narya | Institution Profile | Private Equity International

Use Private Equity International's platform to access the latest news, analysis, insights and fund data for Narya, as well as key contact information.

www.privateequityinternational.com

 

[JackD]

And yet those universities were happy to take the private foundation grant money with admin overhead limited to 15%. How were they able to do that with private foundations, yet required 2-3X more as a percentage for the gov't research grants?

My friend doesn't overhaul her cancer research lab every year with new equipment. Only at a university will you have an Assistant Vice Chancellor for Strategic Partnerships and Community Engagement, or a Special Assistsant to the Vice President of Research Affairs. The actual researchers at these universities are doing valuable work. The administrative regime "supporting" the researchers aren't doing jack squat.

I think some of these researchers should consider a different business model. Form a 501(c)(3) private lab and write grant proposals to the NIH. Get seed money from the private foundations. They avoid all the university nonsense, and actually get to spend most of their time doing their research. In the old days, being faculty at Harvard helped you get the NIH grant. Today, being Harvard faculty might hurt your grant application prospects. What does the university add in terms of actual value to the research?

We are going to get into the weeds on this one. Of course they are going to take whatever money they can get. Those private grants are usually small and only get a researcher a couple of years. Plus, You are thinking that every PHD applying for a grant is running off multiple grants including NIH. Also not the case. Lots of grants are actually shared between PHD’s and even PHD’s at other universities. NIH grants aren’t easy to get either, they usually involve many researchers and many different labs and departments. It’s why the indirect costs are higher because the cost of the actual research is high. Like I said the weeds. I do remember back in my old Days, everyone’s ears perked up when they heard someone had a NIH grant. I think because researchers are super cheap and never have any money.

If the university is public, then hopefully the state can jump in and help provide funds and cover costs related to electric, however they wont help cover salaries. Plus I agree with you the Vice Chancellors are overpaid and can go. They get paid by the university. The PHD’s, the Lab people, the PHD’s students, all paid out of grants. Back in March some PHD students were asking me for places they could apply for jobs since they lost grants and with no money, no research, no job, no stipend, and then can’t graduate.

TBH I don’t know of one place that I cover that is changing out equipment every year and getting new stuff. Most items are on rotation and getting replaced in 7-10 years.

I like your idea of a 501c3, but I don’t have any idea if people could actually do that nor do I have the legal knowledge that could get pulled off.

Okay, like I said, the weeds.