Why Agricultural Subsidies Suck: Reason #583 (WP: Farm Program Pays Non-Farmers)

[Sarge]

Sarge is basically a communist when you get right down to it. It's actually pretty funny, given how many pinko comments he's made.

Yeah, it's really communist to keep an American industry from floundering

[JohnLockesGhost]

Sarge, while I understand the inclination to bail-out floundering industries, history proves it to be a fool's errand. You're not really saving the industry, just allowing it to exist as a parasite.

[Sarge]

Sarge, while I understand the inclination to bail-out floundering industries, history proves it to be a fool's errand. You're not really saving the industry, just allowing it to exist as a parasite.

So the other choice is to let it tank?

There's no way that any industry in America can compete with Turd world slave labor. One need only look at the textile industry.

So basically you want an industry that puts food in your mouth to go under and you want to become dependant on someone else's good will to feed us?

No thanks

[JohnLockesGhost]

So the other choice is to let it tank?

There's no way that any industry in America can compete with Turd world slave labor. One need only look at the textile industry.

So basically you want an industry that puts food in your mouth to go under and you want to become dependant on someone else's good will to feed us?

No thanks

Don't I rely on their "good will" now? I don't know the farmers who grow my dinner. I rely on their own self-interest to grow my food and then sell it to me for a profit. Food will be produced and sold regardless of where it comes from.

Also, I think you are assuming much when you say that our food will have to come from some other country. Food will still be produced in this country, just not in present quantities. I know that's difficult to accept, but the cost of maintaining our current production is HUGE. We're talking hundreds of billions.

[Sarge]

Don't I rely on their "good will" now? I don't know the farmers who grow my dinner. I rely on their own self-interest grow my food and then sell it to me for a profit. Food will be produced and sold regardless of where it comes from.

Also, I think you are assuming much when you say that our food will have to come from some other country. Food will still be produced in this country, just not in present quantities. I know that's difficult to accept, but the cost of maintaining our current production is HUGE. We're talking hundreds of billions.

So, say farmers can no longer afford to grow corn because we can import it cheaper from say Mexico. Then Mexico decides it doesn't like our immigration policy and says "No more corn until you let a millions Meicans into the US every year" Then what?

All sorts of hypotheticals here, but I would prefer not ot get in that boat. Like I said, it's bad enough we're at the mercy of the Sauds and other crazy ragheads for our oil

[JohnLockesGhost]

So, say farmers can no longer afford to grow corn because we can import it cheaper from say Mexico. Then Mexico decides it doesn't like our immigration policy and says "No more corn until you let a millions Meicans into the US every year" Then what?

All sorts of hypotheticals here, but I would prefer not ot get in that boat. Like I said, it's bad enough we're at the mercy of the Sauds and other crazy ragheads for our oil

Well, I don't know if I can change your mind. I just think you should consider what we're buying with these hundreds of billions. You're saying we're buying some security, but we're not really. Mexico would hurt itself more than us. We could always buy it from somewhere else.

[Ancalagon the Black]

America would grow more than enough food without the subsidies. They were designed to protect the "independent" farmer, but the truth is that independent farming isn't economically viable anymore, and most of the subsidies go to huge agribusinesses anyway.

[NoCalMike]

Farm Subsidies exist because of corporate farming, they aren't there to help the small family farmer.

[smsmith40]

I don't think anybody is suggesting that agricultural subisidies should stop. Farmers have lots of critical roles in our society which sholuld be recognised. We also require to maintain the capacity to feed ourselves.

What we need to STOP doing is dumping excess production, already paid for in subsidies, on economies that are entirely dependent on agriculture.

First World farmers need to match their production to demand like any other industry, subsidies should not distort this basic rule of economics. Instead governments should pay subsidies to maintain capacity NOT production.

Every developing economy goes through an agrarian stage by not allowing food poduction to be profitable in Africa we are impeding their development at a point at which they will continue to be dependent on aid indefinitely.

[Ignatius J.]

I am suggesting that agricultural subsidies should stop.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm pretty sure you could say, objectively subsidies suck. Of all the lame government programs, agricultural subsidies are the lamest.

Firstly, our government pays farmers directly for certain crops. This has two negatives. These direct payments skew the incentives for farmers to produce certain varities of crops. Obviously, farmers are going to produce more of what the government pays subsidies for. But having the government determine what crops ought to be produced is never a good idea. Also, these direct payments encourage (and allow) overproduction, which obviously lowers the price for these subsidized crops.

Secondly, our government has several price support mechanisms meant to counteract the effects of the overproduction. These price supports include the government's purchase of "excess" crops (which are subsequently given overseas as "food aid." These "gifts" often destroy the local agriculture markets). The government also pays people (as in the article) to NOT farm, which lowers the supply thus raising the price.

All of this of course costs the taxpayers in three ways. First we pay for the original direct subsidy. Secondly, we pay for the price supports. Thirdly, we are forced to pay higher prices at the store because of the price supports.

Incidently, agricultural policy in this country has been a mess since the twenties. During the Great Depression, I'm sure everyone has heard the stories of farmers being paid by the government to destroy their livestock (as a price support mechanism) when people barely had enough to eat. How can prices be too low when people are poor? Just ask the government.

Great Post!!

[Air Force Cane]

this is what happens when you have government intervention in the economy and move away from laissez faire policy.

for more examples see Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Cuba.

[wskin44]

The problem isn't farm subsidies, it's politicians selling legislation to powerful farming corporations and giving breaks to powerful congressmen/senators who have large farming constituents. Folks who have nothing to do with farming are getting millions in subsidies because they bought farmland to let it sit, or use it for other purposes. Blaming farmers is missing the point. The program was designed to be short term to help real farmers make a transistion. Congressional interests ****ized it in order to get re-elected.