Farm Subsidies

LadyT said:
$3.10/gallon milk as opposed to $2.30 gallon milk. Everyone who's anyone know's that $2.30/gallon milk sucks ass.
Click to expand...

If the price of milk dropped because we removed subsidies that guaranteed a price floor, they'd produce more to cover costs of production. The price would fall further, they'd go out of business. Then you'd be paying $6/gallon for milk instead of $3.50 because the supply would fall while demand would not.

We know what happens without farm subsidies. This is not some theoretical mystery.
 
Instead of looking stupid and arguing about whether or not farm subsidies actually serve a valuable purpose, it would behoove you to talk about what's wrong with the efficiency of the system - like for instance how they decide who gets them.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If the price of milk dropped because we removed subsidies that guaranteed a price floor, they'd produce more to cover costs of production. The price would fall further, they'd go out of business. Then you'd be paying $6/gallon for milk instead of $3.50 because the supply would fall while demand would not.

We know what happens without farm subsidies. This is not some theoretical mystery.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I could be paying less taxes.

I actually don't buy your theory on there being a basic monopoly of farmed foods. The people that are abusing the system would of course be the first to go and perhaps some farms would go belly up but if there is an established market, someone will exploit it.
 
Don't want to seem like I asked you to elaborate for nothing... but it's after 5 here almost out the door and to the gym, will respond later.
 
Paying less taxes and paying more for food. You might be able to absorb that cost, but that hurts many people.

Think outside of yourself, if you're capable.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah. I could be paying less taxes.

I actually don't buy your theory on there being a basic monopoly of farmed foods. The people that are abusing the system would of course be the first to go and perhaps some farms would go belly up but if there is an established market, someone will exploit it.
Click to expand...

I share your sentiment. If there is over production then some farms may go out of business until demand gets back in line with supply.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Paying less taxes and paying more for food. You might be able to absorb that cost, but that hurts many people.

Think outside of yourself, if you're capable.
Click to expand...

I am. And me paying people to NOT WORK isn't too cool. Especially when a lot of those companies use take advantage of illegal laborers.
 
LadyT said:
Yeah. I could be paying less taxes.

I actually don't buy your theory on there being a basic monopoly of farmed foods. The people that are abusing the system would of course be the first to go and perhaps some farms would go belly up but if there is an established market, someone will exploit it.
Click to expand...

Not necessarially. Land is so high that one cannot just start out farming by buying land, Can't make a living that way.
most of it is inherited and once broken up and sold....
 
ib1yysguy said:
If the price of milk dropped because we removed subsidies that guaranteed a price floor, they'd produce more to cover costs of production. The price would fall further, they'd go out of business. Then you'd be paying $6/gallon for milk instead of $3.50 because the supply would fall while demand would not.

We know what happens without farm subsidies. This is not some theoretical mystery.
Click to expand...
Have you got a link to show that the demand for milk is highly inelastic? That is the foundation of your argument.
 
Umm didnt we remove some of the milk subsidies and that is why it it went up ?
Not sure though. Where I am is not a milk producing area.

One think I am pretty sure about we have about 10% of the dairies we did 20 years ago. So disruption of the milk supply is much more likely now than it was. More eggs in fewer baskets so to speak.

Also fewer would have to go out of business to bump up the price a bunch.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
NYsubsidies.jpg



The dots on the above map represent people that received federal agricultural subsidies. The large dots represent people who received more than $250,000. For the geographically challenged, that is a map of Manhattan, where last I checked there weren't too many farms, family or otherwise.

Clearly the agricultural subsidy system is broken and the blame goes a large swath of legislators on both sides of the aisle that represent farm statesand their enablers. What to do about it, I don't know. But something's got to give. That's re-god-damn-diculous.
Click to expand...


The dots on the above map represent people that received federal agricultural subsidies. The large dots represent people who received more than $250,000. For the geographically challenged, that is a map of Manhattan, where last I checked there weren't too many farms, family or otherwise.

A lot of people own agricultural property as an investment, and rent it out to growers. And the owners can live anywhere they want. Even Spain, Italy, or Manhattan. Its quite common.
 
Cypress said:
The dots on the above map represent people that received federal agricultural subsidies. The large dots represent people who received more than $250,000. For the geographically challenged, that is a map of Manhattan, where last I checked there weren't too many farms, family or otherwise.

A lot of people own agricultural property as an investment, and rent it out to growers. And the owners can live anywhere they want. Even Spain, Italy, or Manhattan. Its quite common.
Click to expand...

Are they restricted to being uscitizens ?

I hope so.
 
On milk subsidies. I think the price of milk is high enought that very little is paid in milk subsidies now. They kick in if the price drops below a certain price.
I did read that our exports of milk products has been growing a lot lately too.
 
Cypress said:
That I don't know.

I know of an american citizen who lives in spain, owns agricultural property in california, and leases it to growers.
Click to expand...

That brings up a question should the growers share in the subsidies ?
One thing that map shows is that more and more of our agriculture is owned by fewer and fewer people.

As I said before it is virtually impossible for a small farmer buying land to farm on to make any money now.

My best friend back in ky has about 300 acres worth about 1 mill that he raises cattle on, he just makes a very modest living and works his butt off.
it is inherited land.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
I don't think they're unique to farmers in a sense that they only happen to the farming industry - they don't. But unlike producing widgets, if someone cranks up their factory to flood the market with beach balls and they go out of business because beach balls start selling for $0.05, that doesn't cause a national crisis.

And we know that it happens. Farmers will produce more food in order to make more money, the market prices fall, and they lose money. Farms go out of business, and there is a crisis. Farm subsidies didn't fall from the sky to piss off Libertarians. They exist to solve a practical problem.

... and they give us a trade advantage globally.
Click to expand...

IB1, they wouldn't go out of business because beach balls were selling for 0.05, they'd go out of business because they produced far more beach balls than anyone would want and no one would buy them.
 
ib1yysguy said:
If the price of milk dropped because we removed subsidies that guaranteed a price floor, they'd produce more to cover costs of production. The price would fall further, they'd go out of business. Then you'd be paying $6/gallon for milk instead of $3.50 because the supply would fall while demand would not.

We know what happens without farm subsidies. This is not some theoretical mystery.
Click to expand...

IB1, even you can't believe the shit coming out of your mouth. That's not how economics works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top