An unknown Hero

Yes, he is a great man! I also have to say I'm glad he came out and said this:

"Borlaug, who launched the prestigious World Food Prize, has little patience for current agricultural policy in the developed world. "The claims for these subsidies today by the affluent nations are pretty silly," he says. So far, Congress isn't listening. The octopus-like farm bill does little to curb the ridiculous corporate welfare payments to a tiny number of wealthy (and often absentee) "farmers" who get more than $1 million a year each for subsidized commodities that make our children obese. (Did you ever wonder why junk food is cheaper than nutritious food? Because it's taxpayer-funded)."
 
DigitalDave said:
So, when are we going to get rid of farm subsidies again?
Click to expand...

I was going to ask about that. It seems like its a strong bi-partisan mix in Congress that support these subsidies and will fight like hell to keep them because they go to people in their state or district.
 
They go to their supporters. They get part of that money back when they are up for re-election in the form of donations. Fuckin things ruined our family business and I will never support farm subsidies.
 
I like how everyone just takes for granted, that we have relatively cheap, abundant food in this country.

Want cheap and abundant food? Pay subsidies. Don't want cheap abundant food? Give up subsidies. Its as simple as that.

IMO, the problem is not with subsidies themselves - cheap and abundant food is a critical national priority - the problem is with their implementation. Why are large, corporate agri-business making out like bandits, and small family farms getting screwed?
 
Why do we even need to use subsidies in the first place? We've got rich soil and enough technology that a farmer can support himself without them. Hell, my family did it way before all this new fancy shit came out.. lol.

Throw in subsisidies and it drives the price people will pay for the food down, driving the price markets buy the food from farmers down, driving down the amount of farmers since they can't all support a business at the price people are paying for the food, unless the farmers get subsidies of course.
 
Food is not like other commodities, like refrigerators or microwaves.

We encourage overcapacity in production, to ensure we always have a cheap and plentiful supply of food. That's a national security issue, for one. You can't have a nation that is vulnerable to suppy and demand shocks in food commodities, or reliant on other nations for food. In a pure free market, there would rarely be any overcapacity. We would always be balanced on the razor's edge of an equilibrium between supply and demand - a situation which is potentially dangerous if geopolical conditions, or climatic conditions create a disruption in food production.

There are other reasons, but national security is one of the big ones.
 
Cypress said:
I like how everyone just takes for granted, that we have relatively cheap, abundant food in this country.

Want cheap and abundant food? Pay subsidies. Don't want cheap abundant food? Give up subsidies. Its as simple as that.

IMO, the problem is not with subsidies themselves - cheap and abundant food is a critical national priority - the problem is with their implementation. Why are large, corporate agri-business making out like bandits, and small family farms getting screwed?
Click to expand...

We were a net importer of food products last year, until the administration "massaged" the figures. Even if we technically were not a net importer of food products it is still the lowest balance in more than any of our lifetimes.
This is not a good thing to put food at the mercy of other countries.
 
Cypress said:
Food is not like other commodities, like refrigerators or microwaves.

We encourage overcapacity in production, to ensure we always have a cheap and plentiful supply of food. That's a national security issue, for one. You can't have a nation that is vulnerable to suppy and demand shocks in food commodities, or reliant on other nations for food. In a pure free market, there would rarely be any overcapacity. We would always be balanced on the razor's edge of an equilibrium between supply and demand - a situation which is potentially dangerous if geopolical conditions, or climatic conditions create a disruption in food production.

There are other reasons, but national security is one of the big ones.
Click to expand...


Ummm, then explain why they pay some farmers to NOT grow crops. Just doesn't make sense to say we are trying to have an overcapacity.

Secondly, even if it were a 'national security' issue, the United States was agriculturally self-sufficient before farm subsidies. Even if that weren't true, how would it violate national security to import food? I don't think we'll be starved by an Iraqi naval blockade.
 
Cypress said:
I like how everyone just takes for granted, that we have relatively cheap, abundant food in this country.

Want cheap and abundant food? Pay subsidies. Don't want cheap abundant food? Give up subsidies. Its as simple as that.

IMO, the problem is not with subsidies themselves - cheap and abundant food is a critical national priority - the problem is with their implementation. Why are large, corporate agri-business making out like bandits, and small family farms getting screwed?
Click to expand...


Very naive. The large corporate agri-businesses make out because they have the political pull. That's how government works. It's a reverse Robin Hood and always has been. Now I am sure you will say we need CFR, or some such retearded crap like that, that might allow you to call for more government and less rights for the people. But the Soviets, Communists China any and all nations ever conceived have always benefited a few with political pull at the cost to the masses.

Further, the notion that the food is cheap is naive as well. TANSTAAFL. It's not really cheap. It's cost is simply hidden to the consumer and shifted to the taxpayer (who happen to be the same people wearing a different hat). Our food is more expensive than it would be without subsidy.
 
DigitalDave said:
Ummm, then explain why they pay some farmers to NOT grow crops. Just doesn't make sense to say we are trying to have an overcapacity.

Secondly, even if it were a 'national security' issue, the United States was agriculturally self-sufficient before farm subsidies. Even if that weren't true, how would it violate national security to import food? I don't think we'll be starved by an Iraqi naval blockade.
Click to expand...


Ummm, then explain why they pay some farmers to NOT grow crops. Just doesn't make sense to say we are trying to have an overcapacity.


Environmental, conservation, and public interest reasons.

Soil is not an inexhaustible resource. It is in fact, a fragile resource. Farmers are sometimes paid to not grow crops on certain soils, or to rotate crops, for soil conservation reasons. And environmental reasons.

Read about the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. That was caused by poor soil management, and erosion because of the lack of crop rotation and poor soil management. Soil is a critical natural resource that has to be managed properly. You simply can't let the use of soil be dictated by current market prices of agricultural commodities.
 
To assume all subsidies are bad with out individual case on case basis is just as foolish as assuming they are all good.

Im sure some are done for political motives and many are done to help maage our food crops in the American insterest.

Im so tired of blanket answers which dont fit reality.

If we want a country which really does work we need to pay attention to the real details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top