Farm Subsidies

[ag]

Farm subsidies are the worst crime ever committed by the US. The vilest manifestation of US imperialism. One of the major sources of misery among the world's poor.

Well, I may have exaggerated slightly, for rhetorical effect. But still: a US president who will have removed most of them will be the most deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize (though, if the Europeans do the same, they'd beat him for the honor).

PS: I don't mind transfers to farmers - I only mind transfers to them that are in any way conditional on how much they produce (some usual exceptions, on various public good, externality, and insurance grounds apply).

[paul718]

But if people don't mind the lower quality of food, why should it matter?  

They mind - lots of us mind!  But the problem is that capitalism ignores us - it serves only the majority or average, who, it is true, do not have enough taste or refinement to know quality food.  Also the kind of stuff they don't mind makes them weigh 300 pounds and die at 58 years old..

You can buy from Whole Foods.  Or join a commune.

[phk]

Move to the Economics board.

[Lunar]

Kill them all off.

I call you out.   You bump a thread two years into the future just to quote somebody else?

[Sibboleth]

PS: I don't mind transfers to farmers - I only mind transfers to them that are in any way conditional on how much they produce (some usual exceptions, on various public good, externality, and insurance grounds apply).

Yeah, that's a reasonable position (don't disagree about the damage done by overproduction-and-dumping and so on either). And, of course, the "farmers" that benefit the most are generally...

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

Kill them all off.

I call you out.   You bump a thread two years into the future just to quote somebody else?

     I figured it was a topic worth bumping. I also wanted to join the quote tower. Combine the two & this is what you get.

[Senator Sbane]

Kill them all off.

I call you out.   You bump a thread two years into the future just to quote somebody else?

     I figured it was a topic worth bumping.

I agree. This is an important issue and I think we need to get rid of farm subsidies immediately. Help out American consumers at home and poor farmers around the world. That one act could cause so much good.

[Јas]

PS: I don't mind transfers to farmers - I only mind transfers to them that are in any way conditional on how much they produce (some usual exceptions, on various public good, externality, and insurance grounds apply).

Isn't this happening in the EU already, in that 'decoupling' is ending the link between subsidy and level of production (and instead linking to environmental, safety, welfare and quality standards)?

[Stampever]

I agree. This is an important issue and I think we need to get rid of farm subsidies immediately. Help out American consumers at home and poor farmers around the world. That one act could cause so much good.

But what about the farmers who will be forced to sell off their farms and homes, as well as lay off their field workers if they have a bad crop year?  Don't poor farmers in the US deserve help too?

[dead0man]

Yes, lets continue hurting everybody just to keep a small segment of our population working.  Screw the poor Americans buying food, screw the poor farmer outside of the US.

..and what is so freaking special about poor farmers anyway?  It's some of the hardest and most dangerous work a person can do today.  Non-farmers feel the need to romanticize it for some reason.

[Senator Sbane]

I agree. This is an important issue and I think we need to get rid of farm subsidies immediately. Help out American consumers at home and poor farmers around the world. That one act could cause so much good.

But what about the farmers who will be forced to sell off their farms and homes, as well as lay off their field workers if they have a bad crop year?  Don't poor farmers in the US deserve help too?

HAHAHAHA you think US farmers are poor? Are you still living in the 30s? Getting rid of farm subsidies may affect a miniscule portion of US farmers( still won't cause them to go out of business), but it will help countless farmers around the world who commit suicide every year due to crushing loan payments for fertilizer and farm equipment.

BTW most "farmers" who aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of some corporation don't work on their farms. They have mexicans and poor whites to do the work for them. And they sit in the big cities having wine with cheese and bloviating about "real america".

[Stampever]

I agree. This is an important issue and I think we need to get rid of farm subsidies immediately. Help out American consumers at home and poor farmers around the world. That one act could cause so much good.

But what about the farmers who will be forced to sell off their farms and homes, as well as lay off their field workers if they have a bad crop year?  Don't poor farmers in the US deserve help too?

HAHAHAHA you think US farmers are poor? Are you still living in the 30s? Getting rid of farm subsidies may affect a miniscule portion of US farmers( still won't cause them to go out of business), but it will help countless farmers around the world who commit suicide every year due to crushing loan payments for fertilizer and farm equipment.

BTW most "farmers" who aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of some corporation don't work on their farms. They have mexicans and poor whites to do the work for them. And they sit in the big cities having wine with cheese and bloviating about "real america".

I take it you've never been to the small farms near the Ohio Valley and west towards Iowa.  There are plenty of independent farmers who work their own land (and aren't sitting "in the big cities having wine with cheese").  That is the segment that should be targetted for subsidies during bad harvest years.

[Senator Sbane]

I agree. This is an important issue and I think we need to get rid of farm subsidies immediately. Help out American consumers at home and poor farmers around the world. That one act could cause so much good.

But what about the farmers who will be forced to sell off their farms and homes, as well as lay off their field workers if they have a bad crop year?  Don't poor farmers in the US deserve help too?

HAHAHAHA you think US farmers are poor? Are you still living in the 30s? Getting rid of farm subsidies may affect a miniscule portion of US farmers( still won't cause them to go out of business), but it will help countless farmers around the world who commit suicide every year due to crushing loan payments for fertilizer and farm equipment.

BTW most "farmers" who aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of some corporation don't work on their farms. They have mexicans and poor whites to do the work for them. And they sit in the big cities having wine with cheese and bloviating about "real america".

I take it you've never been to the small farms near the Ohio Valley and west towards Iowa.  There are plenty of independent farmers who work their own land (and aren't sitting "in the big cities having wine with cheese").  That is the segment that should be targetted for subsidies during bad harvest years.

I wonder how many people like that really exist. I am not saying they don't, but they don't make anywhere near the majority of farms. And why should we subsidize them? What's the benefit to the country? We just end up hurting poor people more by making them buy foodstuffs at a high price. And this is before we talk about what American agriproduct dumping does to other nation's farmers. Americans always wonder what they can do for poor people overseas but just this one simple act will help the majority of people in third world countries( most still have the majority working in agriculture). Much better than giving aid to despotic leaders.

[Lunar]

In California we have these lovely water subsidies for agribusiness, that are a fraction of a fraction of what normal people pay, that actively incentives them to grow water-intensive crops by pushing up their profitability beyond reason.  Instead, they'd be growing other crops.

[Senator Sbane]

In California we have these lovely water subsidies for agribusiness, that are a fraction of a fraction of what normal people pay, that actively incentives them to grow water-intensive crops by pushing up their profitability beyond reason.  Instead, they'd be growing other crops.

But..but..but they put pretty signs on I-5 saying I won't have food if they don't get water. So we need to give it to them so they can grow rice in a desert. Makes perfect sense to me.

[Mint]

Get rid of them and all the other worthless corporate welfare out there.

[Jacobtm]

Not only are they bad in their own right, but our governments insistence on maintaining them is a huge problem in international trade relations. Our insistence on maintaining our ample farm subsidies makes it politically impossible for many countries to lower their tariffs on our goods/lower subsidies for their own domestic industries.

[Sibboleth]

I wonder how many people like that really exist.

Oh, quite a few.

I am not saying they don't, but they don't make anywhere near the majority of farms.

Actually they probably do, at least if things are defined loosely enough; although they're obviously also a small (and always declining) section of agriculture in mercenary terms. The Californian agriculture industry (emphasis on the latter word) isn't really all that typical of wider patterns in North American agriculture (although it's an important part of the pattern).

And why should we subsidize them? What's the benefit to the country?

Elimination of genuine farms (as opposed to factories that produce agricultural products) has (and insofar as it's happend has had) a serious impact on food quality. There are cultural and community issues which ought to speak for themselves and there are also often environmental and animal welfare concerns.

It would be better to eliminate industrialised agriculture.

We just end up hurting poor people more by making them buy foodstuffs at a high price.

Food prices are very, very low at the moment and have been for years (here's an easy way of making yourself feel really, really sick. Visit a discount food retailer of some sort, go to the meat section, look at the cheapest stuff. Note first the prices, then consider how that shite came to be produced. Then consider the fact that it's the poorest and weakest sections of the population that are eating that stuff).  What's hurting, quite literally as it happens, poor people in America (everywhere in the "west" actually, but it's especially bad in America. Off the scale in some respects) is the poor quality of the food that they eat. Much of this is due to the laughable standard of regulation, but the dominance of industrialised agriculture is a big factor as well (and of course the latter is one big reason for the former...).

And this is before we talk about what American agriproduct dumping does to other nation's farmers. Americans always wonder what they can do for poor people overseas but just this one simple act will help the majority of people in third world countries( most still have the majority working in agriculture). Much better than giving aid to despotic leaders.

Yeah, ending subsidies to industrial agriculture would certainly be a good thing.

[Senator Sbane]

I wonder how many people like that really exist.

Oh, quite a few.

I am not saying they don't, but they don't make anywhere near the majority of farms.

Actually they probably do, at least if things are defined loosely enough; although they're obviously also a small (and always declining) section of agriculture in mercenary terms. The Californian agriculture industry (emphasis on the latter word) isn't really all that typical of wider patterns in North American agriculture (although it's an important part of the pattern).

And why should we subsidize them? What's the benefit to the country?

Elimination of genuine farms (as opposed to factories that produce agricultural products) has (and insofar as it's happend has had) a serious impact on food quality. There are cultural and community issues which ought to speak for themselves and there are also often environmental and animal welfare concerns.

It would be better to eliminate industrialised agriculture.

We just end up hurting poor people more by making them buy foodstuffs at a high price.

Food prices are very, very low at the moment and have been for years (here's an easy way of making yourself feel really, really sick. Visit a discount food retailer of some sort, go to the meat section, look at the cheapest stuff. Note first the prices, then consider how that shite came to be produced. Then consider the fact that it's the poorest and weakest sections of the population that are eating that stuff).  What's hurting, quite literally as it happens, poor people in America (everywhere in the "west" actually, but it's especially bad in America. Off the scale in some respects) is the poor quality of the food that they eat. Much of this is due to the laughable standard of regulation, but the dominance of industrialised agriculture is a big factor as well (and of course the latter is one big reason for the former...).

And this is before we talk about what American agriproduct dumping does to other nation's farmers. Americans always wonder what they can do for poor people overseas but just this one simple act will help the majority of people in third world countries( most still have the majority working in agriculture). Much better than giving aid to despotic leaders.

Yeah, ending subsidies to industrial agriculture would certainly be a good thing.

Isn't it processed food that is bad? Why would an ear of corn grown by an agro business and one grown by a family farm be different in quality? I am sure they are both using fertilizer, pesticide and all the other wonderful chemicals we like to eat.

[HappyWarrior]

They should only be available for small "family" farms in order to keep them competitive with the agri-corporations.