minty - He’s getting to ya, ain’t he ?
Long live Texas !
chique, I feel for ya. My father in law quit doing dairy work a few years back. Before that his family had worked dairy farms since the dawn of history (they were dairymen back in Germany before they came over to the U.S. before the revolution.) Along with subsidies, I’m suprised that you didn’t mention rGBH. The market was already flooded when Monsanto brought it out, then everybody needed it if they had any hope of staying competitive.
Case in point: most of the dairy farmers in the Hill Country sell to one supermarket chain but (of course) that one company’s demand is limited. This puts all the dairy farmers around here in a daily race to get their milk to market first and accept the store’s price so they don’t have to dump their milk when the daily demand is met. There was talk years ago about getting the farmers to band together in a co-op, but these people are so stupidly conservative that they would rather shoot themselves in the foot on a daily basis than organize.
“Getting” to me? Hell, I never liked the SOB. He lined his personal pockets with my sales tax dollars when I was living in Arlington (though I have to admit, I love the stadium), he was a nonentity as governor, and then his cronies stole democracy.
But that’s another rant, for another day. For the sake of this discussion, I’ll simply point out that he’s a hypocrite when it comes to free trade, and that I am not.
Yeah, whatever. Whiny economically illiterate idiots deserve no respect.
Agri subsidies are economically unsound. Period.
Supply, Demand. Become acquainted with the concept. Ponder the concept of excess production over demand and the effects on price. While there may be issues of market power in some markets,
I offer my rather more literate cock to suck.
And this says what to me, a google search to a bunch of unsubstantiated whinging about factory farms (not that I am entirely blase about the issue, clearly an area requiring oversight)?
Should I offer you a search on say, steamships? Perhaps I should whinge on about how my family’s (historical) business concerns in this area were ruined by technological change?
Yeah, whatever, cry a river.
I’d rather feel some pity for the poorer third world producers with far fewer resources and opportunities muscled out of the market by the sentimental and nonsensical coddling of developed world ‘family farms.’
If the government (i.e. everyone else) subsidizes some lifestyles that can’t support themselves economically, then fair is fair: it should also subsidize my chosen lifestyle as a producer of noxious ass gas.
Seriously though, the president just signed a huge subsidy bill over the obejctions of “libertairan” types like us. So, what more could you possibly want? Why blame us?
If you are a small farm, chances are subsidies are hurting you, not helping you: they are funding the people who are competing you out of the market.
How about me? It costs me shitloads more than that - I haven’t even got a cow. Would it be fair to give me what it costs to produce milk?
Pay for your own hobbies you fucking parasite. And get a job.
—It costs me shitloads more than that - I haven’t even got a cow.—
Who said anything about a cow? That’s just the easy way.
Hey: at least the OP arguement isn’t as bad as the “we must subsidize farms because the country can’t survive without food” I often hear.
Many good points made in this thread. I’ll just add, though, that if it costs $12 to produce 100 lbs. of milk, charge something over $12 for that milk so you can survive and make a profit. Can’t sell your product for what it costs you? Find another line of work. At some point, the market will find price equilibrium. If that means I have to pay $6 for a gallon of milk, that’s the way it goes. Eliminate subsidies, let farmers charge whatever they want for their products, and then let those go out of business if they can’t compete.
There’s no question that farm subsidies don’t make economic sense. Do they make more sense from a national security perspective, though?
Lets assume that the cost of agricultural production overseas is so much cheaper that we get into a situation where the great bulk of the food in American grocery stores comes from overseas. Production on US farms comes to a virtual standstill. Cattle herds in the US are virtually gone (both beef cattle and dairy cattle), as they are economically unfeasible to maintain in the face of foreign competition.
Now imagine that our foreign trade is disrupted (by war or by epidemic or by other means). How long would it take us to re-establish agricultural production and lines of supply in the US? Could we do it quickly enough to avoid famine?
Admittedly, this is something of a doomsday scenario, but I think it is a thing to consider.
By “producers” do you refer to dairy farmers, or cows? (genuine question)
I wonder if all the “OH well, tough shit” folks can summon up that same attitude the next time we hear whinging from, say, loggers that will have to find a different line of work rather than destroy irreplacable old growth forests?
Because, to borrow from the great Humphrey Bogart (who was himself only reading a script, I know)`it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three (or three hundred or three thousand) people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world’’.
And in case there is any confusion, I am not disagreeing in any way with that attitude as it is applied to farmers and subsidies, I agree. I’m just suggesting that that same attitude can and should be applied to other situations, where the greater good is ** not ** served by catering to the needs of the few. (Of course, “greater good” means different things to different people, and should constitute a whole different debate of its own.)
Oh and…
I think it’s neat that * oversight * means two things that are almost perfectly opposite.
stoid
Coldfire, I’m not quite sure what level of production you mean by “grand scale” agriculture.
I think everybody here is laying on the free market capitalism on a little thick. We’ve got all sorts of regulations in place to protect certain industries and to help sustain local economies. Are not anti-monopoly policies anti-free market? Aren’t they unfair?
I think the point that could be argued is whether or not it’s worthwhile as a country (talking about the US) to have and support local agriculture. I buy milk produced locally because the fact that it’s local is important to me, and I can afford to pay a little more. Some people can’t afford it. In a way it’s kind of like the National Endowment for the Arts, public television and radio, and the like. Some folks feel like it’s worth keeping these things around, even if they are not self-supporting.
In fact, the argument could be made that they are self-supporting, as the government by the people and for the people is paying to keep them afloat. So, instead of paying directly for goods and services, we allow the money to be taken out of our taxes.
I think that spoke-'s view very much mirrors my own. Subsidies are valuable from a national security point of view, we should strive to ensure that we can be self sufficient in times of disaster. This would imply subsidies (as necessary) may be applied to staples such as grain, milk, meat, etc. just to keep production ample.
OTOH, many actual subsidies are put in place for chique’s reasonins, to keep farmers in business. This, I do not agree with. If some farmers need to change careers, from time to time, so be it. While I generally support having our gov’t help out US industry, if you cannot compete, find a job where you can.
The main problem with that scenario is that the subsidies are creating the problems that the subsidies allegedly fix. Farmers want subsidies because prices are low, but the subsidies themselves depress prices by inducing and rewarding overproduction. Eliminating the subsidies will cause supply and demand to reach equilibrium and we won’t have to rely on massive imports.
But even if we did have to rely on imports to some extent, it still wouldn’t harm national security. About 90% of the subsidies go to farmers that raise five crops: wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. Even assuming that the end of subsidies reduces US production these crops are grown in many other countries. If all the producers cut off exports to the US at the same time, we’d pretty much be at war with most of the world.
Another added benefit is that trade with other countries generally results in peace. Under the doomsday scenario we’d have to piss off a sizeable chunk of the world to the point that they are unwilling to trade with us. Pissing them off that bad would not be in our interests as an importer of goods nor would knee-jerk reactions be wise on the part of our trading partners since a reduction in exports would hurt their economies.
The answer is simple: the US is currently an incredibly self-dependent country (except for that tiny exception, oil). Should it become more dependant on other nations for its supply, it beter be more careful about which nations it pisses off, to put it bluntly. 
And that’s not a bad thing per se: many a European former world power has had to adopt that attitude, my country included. The US’ size and diversity means it can sustain itself a hell of a lot better than, say, the Netherlands. But clearly, to do so involved a little aid on the domestic front. Not just towards cheap producing third world countries: look at the import tariffs the US is putting on European steel. Free market, mr Bush? My ass - protection of local employment and indepence. Not a bad thing, and an understandable sentiment, but one wonders if this can be maintained ad infinitum.
Eonwe, without getting into a debate about various governmental programs to guide the “free” market: taxation for subsidies is making a choice for all, whereas an individual paying more for locally produced goods does not involve obligatory monetary involvement from all taxpaying citizens. There’s a difference.
I think everybody is laying the Econ 101 on a little thick. Generally, subsidies are bad. They distort the market. Sure, we’re focusing on agricultural subsidies because that’s the topic of the thread. Things like steel tariffs have been discussed in other threads.
US agriculture will survive, and even thrive, without subsidies. It’s the subsidies that are causing the problems. I’m interested in making farming efficient, not in picking individual winners and losers. If it’s inefficient for farmer X to grow soybeans, then he shouldn’t be handed money to grow soybeans.
That’s fine as an individual choice. But we shouldn’t force everybody else to subsidize your choice. If that farm can survive, that’s fine. If it can’t, then it shouldn’t be given handouts to produce inefficiently. I’m interested in efficient production of goods, not picking individual winners and losers based on my personal preferences. Keep buying locally, but don’t expect others to pick up the rest of the tab.
I don’t think the comparison is accurate. The existence of the NEA doesn’t threaten the existence of the NEA. The existence of subsidies actually hurts farming on the macro level.
True enough. I certainly can’t imagine that it is vital to national security to keep tobacco growers in business.
Zoff wrote:
I’m not sure I follow your logic. Seems to me that a truly free market might put us in a position of dependence on cheap foreign produce (while our own agricultural infrastructure atrophies). How do you figure that elimination of subsidies won’t result in such a situation?
Coldfire wrote:
Smiley face noted, and yeah, from a European perspective, US dependence on foreign food might seem a good way to bring us to heel. On the other hand, what about the eruption of a war over which we have no control? Or a global epidemic? Either of these things might disrupt trade through no fault of the US and put us at risk of famine. Shouldn’t we take these scenarios into account in our planning?
In response to Zoff and Coldfire,
I admit to being a little tongue-in-cheek and slightly playing the devil’s advocate, but my round about point was that theoretically our laws are put in place by people we elect, and so if our government implements subsidies, then on some level it’s because a relatively large percentage of the population is in favor of “paying extra” for local agriculture.
As far as subsidies actually hurting small farms, could someone explain how that works again? I’m not quite sure I follow. If it’s just because large “industrial” farms also reap the benefits of subsidies on a large scale, wouldn’t just limiting subsidies to those who need it be a viable solution, as opposed to scrapping the whole idea?
Why do you assume it will atrophy? The current system rewards inefficient use of resources. It pays people to produce what we don’t need. It further encourages overproduction because farmers base their future plantings with the assumption that the subsidies will continue. For instance, when parts of the subsidy program were changed in 1996 from a hideously inefficient system to a merely grossly inefficient system soybean production grew and wheat production diminished. Why? Because the market wanted more soybeans and less wheat. That’s not atrophy. That’s a more efficient allocation of resources.
If we get rid of the subsidies, market prices will determine what to grow. Prices might go up or they might go down for a particular crop. Farmers will use their land to plant what the country needs. We have a lot of farm land, it’s just being used poorly.
And, even if we do increase imports, I don’t think it’s a bad thing as I mentioned above. And it’s highly unlikely we’ll become completely dependent on any single foreign source for products. Advocates of protectionism often claim it helps national security. But I don’t see how making a system work better creates a problem for national security. I’d be interested in hearing a scenario in which national security is harmed by reducing subsidies. We produce a lot of wheat under a bad agricultural system. Why would we atrophy under a good system? If people want wheat, farmers will plant wheat.
Stoid: You need both farmers and cows to have milk producers, so the rough answer to your question is “both.” And you won’t find me whining about loggers who have to find new kinds of employment either.
Eonwe:
No, not at all, if you define a “free market” to mean a competitive market. Monopolies are anti-competitive and therefore contrary to free market principles.
Cheesesteak:
Nice thought, but the U.S. produces way more than enough food to feed ourselves, with plenty left over for exports to the rest of the world. The free market is more than capable of meeting your self-sufficiency requirement without resort to farm subsidies.