I’ve stated my position on subsidies, and not being an expert in the matter, I don’t know if the actual economic climate requires them.
That said, I just want to point out that food is an inherently different product than just about anything else in this world. Without food, we die. There is no other manufactured product that can make such a sweeping statement. Water is already controlled by government (at least in cities and big towns), is pretty much always locally produced and not exportable.
If a disaster happens that makes food unavailable, people will die, in huge numbers. To say we are “dependant” on foreign oil, or electronics, or lumber or any other such thing pales in comparison to depending on food.
If a country requires net import of food for their people to survive, they are at risk. If food becomes scarce, those imports will dry up, and their citizens will die. I am willing to pay a few extra bucks each week to ensure the US food supply is ample. When the shit hits the fan, I can eat food, but I can’t eat money.
>> food is an inherently different product than just about anything else in this world. Without food, we die
Nonsense. Food is a product subject to the market, like everything else. If you have something of more value than food, then you can exchange it for food. And there are plenty of things more valuable than food. In any case, modern food productyion requires machinery and computers and fertilisers many of which are imported. Are you thinking of going back to 18th century subsistence farming?
How about clothing? Without clothing life would be very difficult and yet almost all clothing is imported.
Computer chips are more important than food in today’s world because he who has computer chips can buy a lot of food.
chique, why the fuck are you blaming “libertarian/free market/PETA types” for the fact that your family lost its farm? In case you haven’t been following the news, we people who are opposed to subsidies have lost the battle, big-time. Subsidies are higher now than they have ever been.
So, your family gets the subsidies, more than ever before, and still loses the farm. And we are responsible for that?!! Get a fucking grip.
Sailor, if you offer me a suitcase full of diamonds for my last loaf of bread, you’re walking away with the diamonds. You can’t buy food from someone who won’t sell it to you. If I NEED that food to live, your money is irrelevant. You are right in that if you have something of more value than food, I will trade it. However, when I am starving, NOTHING is more valuable than food.
Also understand that, from a societal standpoint, I’m not necessarily talking about the actual food itself, but everything necessary to produce and distribute food. As resources become constrained, they will be used more and more for essential services. The most essential service of all is to provide food and water. In the end, people will forgo everything, absolutely everything, to get the food and water they need to survive.
Thing about food is, you need it all the time. If you run out, or the country runs out, that’s it, there is no alternative. Eat or die. You can go without buying new clothes for an awful long time.
And this comes for the guy who argued here that “What the U.S. has is not really a farm subsidy program, it is a consumer subsidy program” and that “Food prices at the retail level would quadruple or worse” and “the return to consumers on their tax dollar/food bill is much greater than a 1 to 1 return.”
So you’ve rodgered up the economics angle and are trying the environmental threat spin now?
What’s next … that US subsidies should be regarded as integral to the amelioration of the US greenhouse gas targets specified under the Kyoto Protocols?
I’m going out on a limb here, but if U.S. markets opened up to imported food that met muster (by lowering the price barrier to entry), third-world countries who can provide the food cheaper would pass muster. Seems to work for an awful lot of fruits and vegetables.
Then we learn to live like the other 5.7 billion people in the world? We avoid pissing off everyone (literally) else? This assuming we lose 100% of the capacity to provide food (ludicrous), and not just scale back production of food items grown cheaper elsewhere and imported.
I’m still waiting for a good argument in favor of subsidies. Haven’t seen one yet.
woolly: IIRC, in that earlier thread, I said that I stood by my statements. I still do. I’ve “rodgered up” nothing. I also said that I would not return to that thread, and I haven’t. I said there, and I repeat here, I don’t have the time and energy to take the economics of farm policy to Great Debates.
Although it appears that you read my above post, I’ll quote part of it here: “The cause/effect relationships of U.S. farm policy are complex, and not well understood by a population that has less than 2% involved in agriculture. I’m not getting into that here.”
I won’t argue the economic implications of U.S. farm policy in a forum where, generally, personal insults seem to be the preferred method of proving one’s point. The statements I made in this thread are presented here, take it or leave it.
You feel your ox is being gored by U.S. farming subsidies, and that may well be true. If you think anyone takes pleasure in that aspect of things, you’re mistaken.
The US has never been in a war where it could not buy food and other supplies from abroad and the scenario where such a thing could happen is pretty much impossible. If it is the rest of the world against the US, then food is not the main problem.
Agriculture is not going to disappear, it will probably be downsized and made more efficient. A substantial part would be imported but this already happens with many important goods.
To produce food you need machinery and computers and fuel and fertilizer and many other things which are already being imported. It takes much longer to set up a plant to manufacture certain computer chips or industrial machinery than it does to step up agriculture.
To fight a war you need much more than food. If the US gets to be in a situation where the entire world refuses to sell any goods then food is not a big problem compared to the bombs raining on the US.
Goo, sweetie, thank you so much … things are going to be a bit difficult for my folks for a while. I apprecate your support, as well as the rest of you who expressed sympathies. That means a lot to me.
I, personally, don’t raise anything, Muffin, and haven’t since I graduated a dozen or so years ago. Dairy, with enough land to grow enough feed for the herd. Except for this year. We received four more inches of rain last night. Alfalfa crop is shot - weather forecasters say it’ll be clear, my father cuts it, then it rains for two days. Corn is looking good, except it’s so wet no one is sure they’ll be able to get into the fields to harvest.
Niche markets? My father is thinking pot has a great return on investment. Penalties for over-production are a bitch, though.
I’m not economically illiterate, nor am I an idiot, and I didn’t ask for your respect. But I am whining, yes. It’s difficult to see my parents wonder how much longer they can feed cows - some descended from my great-grandfather’s original herd - before they have to sell them off.
I don’t care. They’re currently keeping the price of milk up above nine bucks a hundred, which is better than nothing.
Wow. What a novel theory. Never heard of that before. Perhaps you should write it up - there may be a Nobel in there for ya.**
I do ponder the concepts of excess production. Quite often. Especially after visiting a factory dairy farm which puts out ten thousand pounds of milk a day. Ever been to one? You’d swear off dairy products if you had. Something about cows never let off concrete or - even worse - let out of their stanchions turns my stomach. Then there’s the increased rate of infections, shorter life spans of the cattle, and a higher calf-death rate. That’s not “unsubstantiated whinging”, dear Collunsbury, because I’ve seen it.**
Go ahead; I won’t stop you. It was rather cathartic for me to rant a bit. Perhaps if you rant about steamships here in the Pit you’ll feel better.**
Your prerogative. My prerogative is wondering whether this news, when it’s broken to my grandfather, will be the bit that’ll kill him.**
Not if my life depended on it, but I do appreciate the offer.
Yeah, I don’t know why I stuck PETA in there…it was late (early, really) when I posted; that was supposed to have gone into the ‘factory farm’ bit of my screed. Other than that faux pas, I don’t personally believe the religious beliefs of Moral Majority have anything to do with economics.
Not a “hobby”, and not mine. I spent most of the 80s watching friends and neighbors have to sell out, and my parents held on, mostly due to my mother’s most excellent boss and his generous yearly raises. I really thought they could hold out til my father was physically incapable of working, but that didn’t happen, unfortunately.
Well, that’s pretty much what’s happening, isn’t it?**
My only bitch about this is that the only ones who will be able to compete are the factory farms, and I think I’ve covered that already.
Bingo.
It bothered me when steel mills were shutting down, it bothered me when the iron mines shut down, it bothers me when hundreds of thousands of people are laid off due to “corporate restructuring”. Hits a little closer to home when it affects YOU, though.
Grampa and I were talking about that the other day. It’s about 20 miles from the creamery to Sauk Rapids and there are three functioning dairy farms on it (soon to be two). Once upon a time - not too long ago, either - you passed one every mile.**
Hell, agriculture isn’t understood by most of the population. The US produces more food more efficientally than anyplace else on earth, yet the only thing a lot of people know about it is that the yogurt is over in the dairy aisle. Over the past year milk has been selling anyplace from a high of 1.34 to .80 a gallon, and I bet there’s not a single person here who can explain why there hasn’t been a corresponding rise or drop in the price of a gallon of milk at the grocery store.
I really should have known better than to mention subsidies as it’s a waste of time to argue with anyone about politics. But ya know, I really have to know something. My memory is really fuzzy on this, but IIRC subsidies (not just for agribusiness, but anything) were put in place because the free market wasn’t working. Is there any truth to this, or am I mis-remembering?
Is the problem lack of subsidization, or is the problem competition from factory farms? Unless subsidies are directed specifically to family farms and not factory farms, hte competition problem will still be there. My guess is that although industry wide subsidies often exist, subsidies for a specific sub-set of an industry are much more rare. For example, I expect that it would be easier to promote dairy subsidies in order to assure steady and low retail prices and to assure a sufficient level of domestic production, but I think it would be much more difficult to promote dairy subsidies for only family farms simply because family farmers can not compete with factory farms. Thus if there are to be subsidies, I expect that they would be to dairy farms, both family and factory. Thus the problem of family farms not being able to compete with factory farms would continue.
If the above is likely (and I don’t know if it is), then the trick would be for a family farmer to provide something that a factory farm cannot provide. For example, milk from free-range cows. If I were to go to the grocery store, and find milk from a local family farm along side of milk from a huge dairy which I assume would be supplied from factory farms, I would pay significantly extra or the family farm milk. There are no factory dairy farms in my region, thus my wording in the hypothetical, but I already make such consumer choices for cheese (I purchase locally produced cheese made from locally produced family farm milk), and for eggs. Quite simply, if I had a choice of Chique’s Family Dairy Milk, or Monsanto’s Factory Milk, I’d pay the extra for the family farm milk.
That’s what I mean by a niche market. Obviously most people would not be willing to pay the extra, but perhaps there might be enough to keep a few family farms in an area viable.
This is oddly appropriate. As a taxpayer and consumer, I am indeed being fucked by farm subsidies. Though admittedly the government is fucking me in many, many other ways as well.
Chique, it seems you do not want a debate here, even though many of the posters to this thread have responded to you with rational arguments instead of in kind. I guess your having posted this in the Pit should have been a clue to that, but you never know, I have seen real debates grow out of threads like this.
If you just want to rant though, that’s your choice and I respect it. I am also sorry that your family is being driven out of business. But I do want you to know that there are people out there who passionately disagree with you on this issue, and who are profoundly disgusted by the very concept of farm subsidies, for reasons that have already been well explained here by other posters.
People like me.
If you decide at a later time that you do want a debate, I would be curious to hear what exactly you propose ought to be done, and why. Complaining about a state of affairs is easy, making a proposal as to what should be changed, and then defending that proposal, is more challenging. It would require you to do more than just an unjustified shifting of the burden of proof, as you did here:
In fact, if the state wants to take my money, in the form of taxes, and then turn around and give it to farmers in the form of subsidies, then it is the state that must justify itself to me, the citizen. Not the other way around.
At the very least, I would be interested in hearing how you feel about proposals put forth, here and elsewhere, to cut off subsidies to larger farms and/or wealthier farmers.
Well, I think a bunch of you are elitist pricks and should be ashamed of yourselves, but probably won’t.
Someone posted feelings of loss and anguish regarding something that’s happening to her family, and understandably she’s worried about her family.
What I see is a bunch of children with expensive degrees twisting the knife in her stomach because she called you a name in her “real” anguish. So you felt that you needed to lash back because she insulted your identity. I think I’ll single Collounsbury out as the head baby.
You want to disagree? That’s fine, but attacking her for her opinion is just fucking childish. It’s apparent that empathy is a social skill that many of you lack. So keep running around like highly educated five year olds while she is sharing her ACTUAL life with you. I guess some of you forget the difference between actual life and a hypothetical great debate.
I for one think she has a reason to be upset, regardless of what I may or may not feel about farm subsidies. I don’t know enough about the subject, but I do have an opinion on it, but I will defer to the more eloquent and educated posts I’ve seen here.
However, to all the crying little babies like Collounsbury who had their ego-bruised because she singled you out in her understandably vitriolic rant, FUCK YOU. Learn to deal with the minor problems cuz god forbid you have a MAJOR problem like she has, who knows how you’ll react.
You don’t have to agree with her, but this thread showed MANY examples of how to disagree without being a big baby, see if you’re “Superior education” can spot them.
mswas, your entire contention is plain wrong. The first line of the OP is:
It was not, for example:
Instead she immediately insulted everyone who believes in the demonstrable fact that subsidies are economically terrible.
Yeah, we’re all sorry about her family farm. It sucks when family businesses get screwed, even if they have persisted only due to a piss-poor business/economic model and a taxpayer-funded dole. But the personal insults directed at people who know the slightest bit about economics are unjustifiable. Sorry.
Many people here have accurately shown that farm subsidies are a bad thing for consumers, for allies, and for the country as a whole. But there are a couple of other things worth noting:
First, farm subsidies overwhelmingly do not go to help the ‘family farmer’. Rather, mega-conglomerates like ADM receive the vast bulk of benefits, which gives them even more power to out-compete the family farmer.
Second, farm subsidies hurt farmers in another, big way. They cause farmers to make decisions that are less efficient. Take dairy farming. There is (or was the last time I looked) a set of tariffs placed on dairy farms that increased the further from consumers the farm was. Putatively, this was done to protect local farmers from large conglomerates that could ship product into an area in bulk. The actual effect, however, is to subsidize dairy farmers that happen to have farms closest to urban centers. As land prices have increased near these centers, you have farms that could not compete without those tariffs. So our dairy farms are located inefficiently, and then become dependent on those subsidies for their very survival.
An excellent case study in farm subsidies was provided by New Zealand. The New Zealand government subsidized sheep feed and fertilizer. And they subsidized sheep farmers based on the amount of land they had that was actively used by sheep. These subsidies grossly distorted the marketplace. Rivers began to be polluted because of overfertilization. Farmers were placing sheep in areas where they did not belong, like on ledges cut out of the sides of hills, in order to claim the land for subsidies. And the combination of subsidized feed and a government program that paid for sheep by the pound and not by quality of the meat led to fat sheep with lousy meat that no one wanted to buy. As a result, New Zealand went from having a reputation for the best meat in the world to a situation where they couldn’t even sell their sheep on the market, and the government was forced to buy the sheep and convert them to tallow.
In short, the New Zealand farming industry was turned into a basket case through subsidies. But then, the government went broke. Literally. And the subsidies stopped, almost overnight.
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Farmers marched in the streets claiming they were being destroyed, and that there would be no New Zealand farm industry at all within five years.
And what happened? Well, farmers had to learn to compete again. Without the subsidies, they found that the most cost-effective way to raise sheep was to focus on meat quality and get higher prices. The quality of the meat went up, sales improved, water quality in the rivers improved, and today New Zealand has a very healthy farming industry. Most farmers will now admit that those subsidies were like a bad addiction. The withdrawal symptoms were tough, but in the end, they are better off for getting the subsidy monkey off their backs.
Maeglin: Your entire comprehension of my post was just plain wrong.
If you’ll point out to me where I said she WASN’T being insulting or heavy handed I’d appreciated it.
What I DID in fact say was that people like Collounsbury were being big babies by attacking someone who in their grief lashed out. In otherwords sometimes it’s ok to set aside the intellectual pretension and accept that someone is having a real problem that justifies not having the most calm response. YMMV on this one.
Ahh, but the nasty vitriolic personal insults back because she may have hurt their poor little feelings, are justifiable? Fine you want to defend these elitist kindergartners, go ahead. Chique’s OP may not have been the most diplomatic way to say things, but I hardly think that justifies comments like “Get a job and support your own hobbies”.
People say nasty things when they are hurt, and I’m sorry to hurt people’s logical brains but sometimes mental and physical hurt ARE justifications to act distraught or even downright irrational.
How you determine that is up to you. If you think Collounsbury and his peers were reasonable in their vitriolic response to a slight attack on their persona, then that’s fine. I just think they are assholes.
If when my uncle died of cancer and I came online blaming it on Agent Orange and posted a diatribe about certain people in our country enabling a government to do that to him, I seriously doubt I would have gotten the same vitriolic anger. What she’s going through is a very serious issue for her and her family, and I think pointing out that people in the third world have it worse is just plain low-class.
So I guess that’s my problem, these people chose a really bad to point out once again how little class they have.
As I pointed out before, there were MANY posts that pointed out where they felt that Chique was in error, without being nasty and bitter that she called libertarians a bad name. It just amazes me that someone as smart and educated as Collounsbury can have such a low self-esteem about their knowledge that when someone even vaguely attacks part of their identity they feel so threatened that they must attempt to hurt that person.
Maeglin: Your entire comprehension of my post was just plain wrong.
If you’ll point out to me where I said she WASN’T being insulting or heavy handed I’d appreciated it.
What I DID in fact say was that people like Collounsbury were being big babies by attacking someone who in their grief lashed out. In otherwords sometimes it’s ok to set aside the intellectual pretension and accept that someone is having a real problem that justifies not having the most calm response. YMMV on this one.
Ahh, but the nasty vitriolic personal insults back because she may have hurt their poor little feelings, are justifiable? Fine you want to defend these elitist kindergartners, go ahead. Chique’s OP may not have been the most diplomatic way to say things, but I hardly think that justifies comments like “Get a job and support your own hobbies”.
People say nasty things when they are hurt, and I’m sorry to hurt people’s logical brains but sometimes mental and physical hurt ARE justifications to act distraught or even downright irrational.
How you determine that is up to you. If you think Collounsbury and his peers were reasonable in their vitriolic response to a slight attack on their persona, then that’s fine. I just think they are assholes.
If when my uncle died of cancer and I came online blaming it on Agent Orange and posted a diatribe about certain people in our country enabling a government to do that to him, I seriously doubt I would have gotten the same vitriolic anger. What she’s going through is a very serious issue for her and her family, and I think pointing out that people in the third world have it worse is just plain low-class.
So I guess that’s my problem, these people chose a really bad to point out once again how little class they have.
As I pointed out before, there were MANY posts that pointed out where they felt that Chique was in error, without being nasty and bitter that she called libertarians a bad name. It just amazes me that someone as smart and educated as Collounsbury can have such a low self-esteem about their knowledge that when someone even vaguely attacks part of their identity they feel so threatened that they must attempt to hurt that person.
