Subsidies help domestic producers over non-domestic producers. Forget about whether you would see more food from your local farm than from across the country. You would see more food from foreign suppliers.
Yes, I can see that, because without the subsidies a Mexican tomato would be cheaper than an American one, even with the costs of transportation. What I’m wondering though, is if it would also be cheaper than those grown by the small farmer down the street or a can of tomatoes from the market? In other words is there a point where consumers give up on large food producers because they can no longer make an affordable product?
Whether it’s a gallon of milk or anything else, if my tax dollars are subsidizing production then the price isn’t as low as they’re pretending anyway, and the guy at the farmer’s market has stuff for the same prices without the subsidy. So, by my logic cutting subsidies would increase farmer’s markets (which often include products from local dairies). This could mean more local farm jobs, less industrial waste, and lower taxes. Yes?
Subsidies like this protect producers from the vagaries of the market. Who do you think is better suited to ride the ups and downs of the market: Old McDonald or ADM?
Good question. I guess what I’m thinking is that the vagaries of the market are a part of the deal just like any other business. I think if a huge corporation like ADM needs tax dollars to stay in business then they should close up shop just like the video store across town had to do when Netflix showed up.
And so, my question again is this: what would take their place?
Because if the price of milk gets so high that no one can afford to buy it what’s the next step? Either we all stop drinking milk or the domestic price comes back down or we start trucking in milk from somewhere else and still get a better price or we make friends with the dairy farmer three towns over and start buying it from him for less than $7/gallon. In all of those scenarios the community has decided not to pay the higher price, which effectively empties the $7/gallon threat. So I’m saying go ahead, raise the price of milk, because it’s ADM that will lose in the end.
I don’t know that ADM needs the subsidies, but they are certainly in a better position than Mr. McDonald to not only work the system, but ensure the system is designed to benefit them.
Keep in mind that these subsidies are expressly designed to keep the price of the product higher than the market prices them. They kick in when the price drops “too low”. The government creates artificial “demand” that keeps the prices higher.
Wrong. You will pay the higher price, because the government will take your money (or take out another loan in your name) without your consent and spend it on the $7 a gallon milk. Subsidy money doesn’t grow on trees.
First, they came after Canada’s maple syrup, and I said nothing…
Then they came after America’s milk, and I said nothing…
Hmm, I understood the threat to be if you don’t give us our subsidies we’ll have to raise the price to $7 per gallon because those subsidies are what’s keeping the price we charge at the register lower than that now. So if the price goes up that high, it would be because there are no subsidies for the government to steal from me, correct?
To which I say go ahead because no one is going to buy milk with a $7/gallon price tag at the quickie mart, so the companies who tried to sell it at that price would lose customers and…then what?
What comes after that? Do they dig into profits and lower the price because selling some for less is better than selling none for more? Do Americans start making friends with local dairies? Do Americans begin starting small dairies in their own communities?
How will Americans respond if the price of milk really does go up to $7 per gallon? Would that response be better (for the federal budget and/or for citizens) than the current system of subsidies?
You still don’t get it. They can sell it all for more, because that’s what the government is offering.
Either me and a group of friends band together to purchase a dairy cow which we then graze on my friend’s 70 acres of land, or I buy a dairy goat. Either way, we’ll have milk… even if we have to raise our own.
Of course, it helps I’m in an area where it’s legal to own livestock.
I hear that’s an expensive and time-consuming hobby. I hope you aren’t expecting any government subsidies.
It’s an indication that the entire system needs to be re-vamped.
So, after the government buys up all this milk at this inflated price, what does it do with it then? Make it all into welfare cheese? Re-sell it to the public? Put it all into the Strategic Milk Reserve?
I’m not entirely certain that I consider myself a member of the Tea Party, but I have wished for a long time that all farm subsidies would be ended. Unfortunately, too many Congressmen put their constituents and their political careers above the Constitution.
Generally commodities purchased as part of agricultural price support activities are disposed of in ways that will minimize the impact on the domestic market.
Since the whole point is to keep the food production infrastructure mostly in tact through market fluctuations (by creating an artificial price floor to guarantee some level of profitability for at least some producers) it would be counterproductive if the government got rid of the excess in a way that reduced demand for the product on the open market.
It can be given away as foreign aid, sold later on the open market when conditions are stable, or used in school lunch programs, just as examples.
While some farm subsidies need ended, the general concept isn’t terrible. Since time immemorial civilized societies have needed to feed themselves through agriculture. Even in the modern world it does make sense for government to have a program in place to avoid the “food production infrastructure” from collapsing due to market variations. That would expose us to famine, which is a bad thing.
I’d be interested in seeing proof that any of these farm subsidies is needed to prevent famine.
I never made such a claim. What I said is that ending all farm subsidies could expose us to famine which is a very different claim.
Farm subsidies do historically come from an era in which some of the people involved in the earliest subsidy legislation (which came in the early 20s) had lived through food shortages. I’m not claiming it is akin to a dam where if you demolish it flooding will immediately happen. Instead, as I said, it protects the long term food production infrastructure. It isn’t in the interests of the United States for large scale farm bankruptcies to happen, because in a far off scenario if global food production is for some catastrophic reason severely damaged then we would need a guarantee of total food self-sufficiency since in such a scenario countries would not be exporting much if any food.
If farms were allowed to totally boom/bust there is the danger such a global food crisis could happen at the same time as a bust cycle and we’d have lower farm output available. An inactive farm can only be brought back on line so quickly, especially dairy or meat production as it takes time to acquire the animals and time for them to grow. Crop farms have the problem of plants only growing so fast and seasonal constraints.
Generally, yes. But then, generally, the government is buying these commodities at a sane price, such that most of the production is still going to private buyers. If Uncle Sam is paying $7 a gallon, though, it’s going to end up with a heck of a lot more milk than it usually does. And decisions about what to do with the milk are probably made at a departmental level, not requiring action by a gridlocked Congress, so presumably the Department of Agriculture (I presume) would be making some unconventional decisions to deal with the unconventional situation.
One could imagine them selling surplus milk below-cost to those who process and manufacture dairy products.
In other words, blessed are the cheesemakers.
Seems like a pretty big jump from ‘best fed civilization in the history of the species’ to ‘famine’ regardless of how many conditionals you use.