U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[belfpala]

A lot of the individual subsidies I have heard about seem ridiculous...

The only thing that boggles me is we pay for farmers to grow things, but we also pay for people to NOT grow things.

Makes. No. Sense.

But I wonder what our food culture would look like today if corn wasn't so heavily subsidized for the last few decades.

Edit: heh, Felya beat me to that. Hadn't read his post before I hit submit on mine.

[Masark]

The only thing that boggles me is we pay for farmers to grow things, but we also pay for people to NOT grow things.

Makes. No. Sense.

It makes sense in the sense of ensuring a stable supply, rather than continuously oscillating between "too much" and "not enough".

[belfpala]

It makes sense in the sense of ensuring a stable supply, rather than continuously oscillating between "too much" and "not enough".

If I pay Employee A overtime to work 60 hours per week, and I pay Employee B regular pay to stay home 20 hours per week, how does that make any sense?

[ptwonline]

If I pay Employee A overtime to work 60 hours per week, and I pay Employee B regular pay to stay home 20 hours per week, how does that make any sense?

It does if you think that you may need Employee B for something critical someday, and if you let him go you will never get another replacement.

That's the issue with farmland. If not used (or reserved) for farming it will often end up getting developed and never usable for farming again.

[belfpala]

It does if you think that you may need Employee B for something critical someday, and if you let him go you will never get another replacement.

That's the issue with farmland. If not used (or reserved) for farming it will often end up getting developed and never usable for farming again.

What's to stop Employee B from getting another job that will pay him for 40 hours, instead of the 20 I was paying?

Edit: Just an anecdote... all of the people I know who get paid for not growing anything never intended to grow anything at all. They bought land on the boundaries of expanding suburbs and are hoping to cash in once suburbia makes it out that far.

[ptwonline]

What's to stop Employee B from getting another job that will pay him for 40 hours, instead of the 20 I was paying?

Edit: Just an anecdote... all of the people I know who get paid for not growing anything never intended to grow anything at all. They bought land on the boundaries of expanding suburbs and are hoping to cash in once suburbia makes it out that far.

I didn't say the system was perfect (or that I even agreed with it) but that is the rationale behind it.

[Wells]

Its absolutely ridiculous that the US has subsidies for agriculture at all. I can understand a country like Iceland having some subsidies so that they have some domestic production as security for potential disasters. But the US has some of the best farmland in the world.

If you want to maintain domestic food production just in case, which any country that can should, just having the farm land isn't enough. You have to maintain the industry.

[Deleted]

If you want to maintain domestic food production just in case, which any country that can should, just having the farm land isn't enough. You have to maintain the industry.

The point obviously is that the industry is totally viable without subsidies.

Tell me if this sounds familiar:
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id395.htm

Reagan's solution to a farming bubble, that was described as the worst crisis sense the great depression, was a bail out that had indefinite subsudies. The result was so successful, the largest producer of corn in US, has a giant statue of Reagan at their headquarters.

So your argument for subsidies is that it makes the people who recieve the subsidies rich?
Ofcourse you're going to fucking make money when the government essentially hands it to you.

[Wells]

The point obviously is that the industry is totally viable without subsidies.

Maybe and I'm not going to say our subsidies couldn't use work, they're a large part of our obesity issues. That being said, if they're necessary to maintain a strong food production industry then so be it.

[Deleted]

Maybe and I'm not going to say our subsidies couldn't use work, they're a large part of our obesity issues. That being said, if they're necessary to maintain a strong food production industry then so be it.

You don't need a strong food industry to fulfill the national security component. It just needs to be sufficient to keep people from starving if the countries you import from suffer disuptions.

Also, the US is a net exporter of food, and has been for the last couple centuries, so the argument that subsidies are necessary for national security reasons is null. It's corporate welfare. Taxpayer money going to Big Agriculture.

[Wells]

I'd think a food industry that has to be able to adequately feed 300 million people in one of the largest countries on earth would be by definition "strong".

Also, the US is a net exporter of food

Right, because at present we're not in a crisis where we need to rely entirely on domestic production. And most of our food exports are to you guys over in Europe as I recall, and that's going to have to come from somewhere.

[Deleted]

I'd think a food industry that has to be able to adequately feed 300 million people in one of the largest countries on earth would be by definition "strong".

Here's the thing, it doesn't have to feed 300 million people. You can import. Not everyone can be a net exporter. But because US farmland is of such high quality, the US will be a net food exporter without subsidies as well. So no worries.

Right, because at present we're not in a crisis where we need to rely entirely on domestic production. And most of our food exports are to you guys over in Europe as I recall, and that's going to have to come from somewhere.

If the US food industry was fully dependant on subsidies, and you took them away, what would happen is that other countries' agriculture sectors would pick up the slack. This would benefit the US the most. Subsidies disrupt market allocation.

[Wells]

Here's the thing, it doesn't have to feed 300 million people. You can import. Not everyone can be a net exporter. But because US farmland is of such high quality, the US will be a net food exporter without subsidies as well. So no worries.

I don't think you get it. If we want a food industry we can rely on in the event of some kind of disaster then it stands to reason that when times are stable we would be a net exporter.

If the US food industry was fully dependant on subsidies, and you took them away, what would happen is that other countries' agriculture sectors would pick up the slack. This would benefit the US the most. Subsidies disrupt market allocation.

Only in a world where we don't take national security into account. There are fairly obvious reasons we might not want to rely on China or the African nations for our food supply.

[Deleted]

I don't think you get it.

Yeah except I do. The US has been a net exporter for the last 200 years, and it will be a net exporter without the subsidies.

If we want a food industry we can rely on in the event of some kind of disaster then it stands to reason that when times are stable we would be a net exporter.

Many nations are net food importers yet that doesn't mean the people will starve in case of disasters in countries they import from.

[Wells]

Yeah except I do. The US has been a net exporter for the last 200 years, and it will be a net exporter without the subsidies.

So when you cut down my post in your quote does that mean that's the only part you read? Because that's what it seems like.

Many nations are net food importers yet that doesn't mean the people will starve in case of disasters in countries they import from.

We're not discussing other nations.

[ptwonline]

You guys DO notice that food prices are rising, right? You DO notice the effect of the drought this year, right?

Meat prices could rise and be elevated for years because farmers had to slaughter animals they couldn't afford to keep, and it will take years to recover.

[Elegiac]

You guys DO notice that food prices are rising, right? You DO notice the effect of the drought this year, right?

Meat prices could rise and be elevated for years because farmers had to slaughter animals they couldn't afford to keep, and it will take years to recover.

Rising food prices are more a symptom of the oil situation rather than the drought.

[Wells]

Rising food prices are more a symptom of the oil situation rather than the drought.

Its both of them.

[ptwonline]

Rising food prices are more a symptom of the oil situation rather than the drought.

Drought made the cost of feedstock and water rise, and farmers had to sell/slaughter their livestock. That had a moderating effect on this year's prices since meat was dumped on the market, but in coming years it could be a problem.

[Felya]

So your argument for subsidies is that it makes the people who recieve the subsidies rich?
Ofcourse you're going to fucking make money when the government essentially hands it to you.

What did I say that had anything to do with being rich? The cause of farm subsudies was a farm crisis, which much like our current economic crisis, was described as the new great depression. The problem was and still is, is that this bail out of the farms, is indefinite. Unlike Obama's bail out of the automotive industry, the Reagan bail out of farms is still going and does not ask for any of it back.

The fact that there is a statue of Reagan at the largest corn producer's headquarters, isn't a shot at the wealthy. But, an example of it lasting long after people have forgotten it even happened.