Why should we give money to farmers hit by drought?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

I think in some respects weather might be considered a national resource, but more closely related to infrastructure. When it snows we clear the roads, if their is drought paying the farmers might be looked at similar. We need farmers not to go bankrupt.

[Simplicio]

@badger5149

I think in some respects weather might be considered a national resource, but more closely related to infrastructure. When it snows we clear the roads, if their is drought paying the farmers might be looked at similar. We need farmers not to go bankrupt.

Except most farmers are already insured. And farming is increasingly lucrative, so they shouldn’t have any problem paying insurance premiums during the good times to get them over the bad. Widespread bankruptcy shouldn’t be an issue.

I don’t think the road analogy holds. The gov’t pays to clear roads because the gov’t owns the roads. Private parking lots are cleared by private plowing services.

Farms are generally privately owned.

[boytyperanma]

There are pros and cons to supporting the farming industry and I tend to believe it is a good thing for the country but when it comes down to it is political. Our reason for doing so is there are votes to be gained or lost based on the support of the farm industry and no major political party is going to abandon a state with two senate votes.

[Ludovic]

@Simplicio

That’s a good deal if your in China

@badger5149

if their is drought

My brain asplode.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Simplicio

I don’t really see any usefulness in subsidizing a product just to export it. If the gov’t pays to make beef in the US 50% cheaper, then people in China can buy US beef, since hey, cheap beef. But the net effect is the US taxpayers are just buying a bunch of stuff for Chinese. That’s a good deal if your in China, since you get someone else to buy you food. And its a good deal if your one of the .5% of the US population employed in agriculture, since you get to lower your prices but still get the same amount of money per-unit. But I don’t see where US taxpayers get anything out of buying food for other people.

It also undercuts the ability of farmers in poor nations to reach the world market, because they can’t match the subsidized prices coming from rich countries.

[Chimera]

@Simplicio

And farming is increasingly lucrative

Boom and bust, boom and bust. It’s temporarily lucrative. And farmland costs an arm and a leg. If you’re paying mortgage rates on $1 million for 160 acres (or more), you’re not making tons of pocket money off your crop.

[Simplicio]

@Chimera

Boom and bust, boom and bust. It’s temporarily lucrative. And farmland costs an arm and a leg. If you’re paying mortgage rates on $1 million for 160 acres (or more), you’re not making tons of pocket money off your crop.

Then they should raise prices, like people in every other industry do.

Seriously, none of the arguments people are coming up with are specific to farming. And yet, every other industry seems to be able to deliver products to consumers without rifling through the pockets of their countrymen every year.

I’m pretty progressive politically. While I think free markets are generally the best way to organize things, there are plenty of places I can see where its useful to have the gov’t step in if it can be shown that there’s some crucial public good that’s not being served by the markets.

For example, even though food is fairly cheap, there are some people that can’t afford it. Free markets or not, I don’t like think people starving to death is in the public interest, so I don’t have any problem with food stamps to help people buy food. That’s technically a subsidy to farmers as well, but its one that’s narrowly focused on the people that need it to remedy a specific tangible concern.

Direct payments and drought relief to farmers don’t do that. They just distort the market and make the rest of us poorer. And give us a bunch of corn to put in our gas tanks for no reason anyone seems to be able to articulate.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@fumster

There actually is a reason for farm subsidies and other agricultural programs; whether or not they are still needed or desirable is open to debate. If there is a huge crop of some commodity then the prices can drop low enough that farmers may not make any money after expenses. Then the next year enough a large number of farmers may decide to not plant that crop and the resulting shortage can drive up prices meaning that farmers will plant more acreage the next year causing a surplus that drives down prices, rinse and repeat. Agriculture is more susceptible to this boom and bust cycle because a particular crop is usually only harvested once a year and everyone does it at the same time. Throw bad weather into the mix and things get even more unpredictable. That is fundamentally different than most businesses which can make adjustments to their production and labor costs more easily.

The fallacy in that argument is threefold

1. That people with real skin in the game, and who’s livelihood is on the line, are too stupid to figure that out

2. That somehow you (a person with extra free time to post on an alternative weekly column website) just did, but people with real skin in the game, and with decades of experience, and who’s livelihood is on the line, cannot

3. That if you delegate power and wealth to an omniscient controller sitting in an air-conditioned office in Washington, D.C. with a kajillion special interests pulling at their coat-tails, they will figure it out for the benefit of us all, even though (1) you apparently just figured it out and (2) the people with real skin in the game, and who’s livelihood is on the line, cannot

Calling Dr. Hayek… Dr. Hayek, Dr. Fine, Dr. Hayek.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

He’s a taxpayer. He’s got “skin in the game”, genius. He’s also not saying farmers are stupid. Knowing that prices of a commodity crop are volatile is not the same as knowing whether they will go up or down.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

He’s a taxpayer. He’s got “skin in the game”, genius. He’s also not saying farmers are stupid. Knowing that prices of a commodity crop are volatile is not the same as knowing whether they will go up or down.

How does he have “skin in the game” as a taxpayer? And “Skin in the game” is generally referred to as a voluntary assessment, or assumption of risk and/or accountability.

There are many and numerous ways to manage and mitigate volatile commodity prices. Or perhaps I missed your point, genius.

[Ludovic]

@IdahoMauleMan

And “Skin in the game” is generally referred to as a voluntary assessment

No, it isn’t.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@Ludovic

No, it isn’t.

Then it is something else. Something taken by force.

[Ludovic]

@IdahoMauleMan

Then it is something else. Something taken by force.

Skin in the game is a phrase most recently associated by those complaining that certain people pay little or none of certain taxes. Therefore people with skin in the game are those that do pay those taxes.