Farm Subsidies

And it's not an assumption. We saw it happen in the fucking 30s. Farmers do what they need to do to get money, and they don't necessarily understand microeconomics enough to know that by growing more crops and contributing to a price decrease.
 
What you saw happen in the 30's was due to government interference. Much of the same interference you counsel now.

Hoover and the FFB pumped money into farms in the form of low interest loans. They attempted to prop up the prices which only attracted more production. And the huge stockpiles that were being amassed scared the market.

The attempts to restrict production only encouraged more production as farmers were hoping to cash in on the governments manipulations. But that invalidated the efforts and exacerbated the problems.

Eventually the delays collapsed and made the correction more drastic.
 
Truly, I don't even know that prices would fall much. The thing is the interventions distort the market. By guaranteeing price floors and profits, you attract capital into the production of the very goods that you are trying to suppress. Without the guarantees it becomes a less attractive investment/tax haven, especially for "gentlemen" farmers who don't really need to make money on their crops and therefore will dump them for lower prices.

I would guess, prices would decline slightly with free trade, so would the concerns over overproduction and short falls.
 
ib1yysguy said:
And it's not an assumption. We saw it happen in the fucking 30s. Farmers do what they need to do to get money, and they don't necessarily understand microeconomics enough to know that by growing more crops and contributing to a price decrease.
Click to expand...

Microeconomics doesn't require knowledge of how it works in order for it to affect people.
 
im against subsidies to any organization for the most part.. Buts whats better? Subsidizing a farm that provides food.. or a criminal drug addict that provides crime.
 
Watermark said:
Tobacco farmers get about 256 million every year.
Click to expand...

WRONGO, that is gone now.

Unless some are still getting the residuals from the buyout.
Now anyone can raise all the tobacco they want to.

There are no current govt price supports or anything active for tobacco.
 
This is probably the most interesting thread I can remember in a long time. Congratulations to Dung for his courage in posting this, every now and then this board can surprise.

This is one of those rarest of rare issues that actually has a reasonable chance of seeing government decrease with both parties being against it in enough numbers.
Usually you can count on Repub suburb support and some Repub country support to eliminate it, Dems in suburbs are usually the decider. The Dems elected in the country have little chance of supporting eliminating them as it's about the only reason they get elected.
 
TheDanold said:
This is probably the most interesting thread I can remember in a long time. Congratulations to Dung for his courage in posting this, every now and then this board can surprise.

This is one of those rarest of rare issues that actually has a reasonable chance of seeing government decrease with both parties being against it in enough numbers.
Usually you can count on Repub suburb support and some Repub country support to eliminate it, Dems in suburbs are usually the decider. The Dems elected in the country have little chance of supporting eliminating them as it's about the only reason they get elected.
Click to expand...

yeah eliminating the tobacco supports also meant a very large sum of money was paid out to tobacco farmers .
either lump or over a period of years.
 
uscitizen said:
yeah eliminating the tobacco supports also meant a very large sum of money was paid out to tobacco farmers .
either lump or over a period of years.
Click to expand...

That sucks, but at least there is an end.
Most of what motivates me the strongest in opposing government growth is not in the growth in itself but in the near impossibility to reverse it once done, dependence grows with good intentions.
 
TheDanold said:
This is probably the most interesting thread I can remember in a long time. Congratulations to Dung for his courage in posting this, every now and then this board can surprise.

This is one of those rarest of rare issues that actually has a reasonable chance of seeing government decrease with both parties being against it in enough numbers.
Usually you can count on Repub suburb support and some Repub country support to eliminate it, Dems in suburbs are usually the decider. The Dems elected in the country have little chance of supporting eliminating them as it's about the only reason they get elected.
Click to expand...


Dano - I agree that there is a problem, but there is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle for this one. The Republican controlled Congress passed a Republican written bill that was equally bad when it had control. All of the rural legislators go for this crap and plenty of urban ones go along for the ride since they know that turnabout is fair play.
 
Dungheap said:
Dano - I agree that there is a problem, but there is plenty of blame on both sides of the aisle for this one. The Republican controlled Congress passed a Republican written bill that was equally bad when it had control. All of the rural legislators go for this crap and plenty of urban ones go along for the ride since they know that turnabout is fair play.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is an issue of partisanship as both parties are equal opportunity offenders on this issue. It's a matter of how do we promote change.
 
cawacko said:
I don't think this is an issue of partisanship as both parties are equal opportunity offenders on this issue. It's a matter of how do we promote change.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's the tough part. If only we had a fiscally conservative party devoted to reducing government largess with control of both houses of Congress and the presidency . . .
 
TheDanold said:
That sucks, but at least there is an end.
Most of what motivates me the strongest in opposing government growth is not in the growth in itself but in the near impossibility to reverse it once done, dependence grows with good intentions.
Click to expand...

Personally I thought the tobacco alottment system was always antiamerican. Only people with hereditary tobacco allotments attached to their land could raise tobacco.
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, that's the tough part. If only we had a fiscally conservative party devoted to reducing government largess with control of both houses of Congress and the presidency . . .
Click to expand...

Yep no fiscal conservaties left much anymore. Too much tax money that all want their hands on.
and I consider privitization to be one of those tax grabbing schemes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top