I had a farmer recount to me once that he went out with a broom and got enough beans from the bottom of a grain bin to fill the trunk of his car. He told me that trunk full brought him more cash than an entire gravity box wagon the year before!
It appears the price was set based on market rates on the day the deal was done. In effect, the USA just sold all the grain on that day, more than they actually had, not on the actual day of delivery. They just issued a futures contract.
Had the price of grain fallen on world markets, the soviets would have lost out.
Really? I though that, until the mid-century at least, the vast majority of the population of the USSR were farmers.
I mean, ok, of course they grey other things as well, but still - that sounds strange.
No one was nuking anyone, the Soviet leadership was just trying to maintain their decadent lifestyles at the expense of their peoples.
just because the seller couldn't detect a weakness on the buyer and artificially inflate the prices it is considered a robbery? Does someone who will need a car for a job or lose the house for non-payment "rob" the car dealership for not disclosing they really need that car they are purchasing at market price?
IMO, the robbery is that the business people consulted for the deal saw only the big sale and the possibility to get their costs subsidized (for what reason that was even offered by the govt?!) and they indeed made a nice profit and were not affected by the internal price hike as they were sellers, not buyers, while the US public lost 300mi subsidizing this mess and paying the higher prices. Indeed a robbery.
> The term Great Grain Robbery is a pun referring to the "Great Train Robbery" novel
The novel in question being a 1975 one by Michael Crichton! Being British, to me, the term refers to an infamous train robbery in 1963. I don't know if that incident is well known in the US.
Presumably, though, both those uses are references to the film.
The 1903 movie referenced is a separate dramatisation of a US robbery: