Americans pay over double the world cost for sugar.

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not a free-market zealot, but I do think there should be some connection between what a good costs to produce, and what it costs to buy; there's no need for subsidies in agriculture.

There is even less need to subsidze peoples health insurance costs. but the US does it by making it a tax decutible expense. Why should we do one and not the other?

I just went backed and checked my records. The goverment subsidy payment for my farm were $13.50 for every acer of cropland planted. That works out to 27 cents a bushel of wheat. That's not much, but more then I thought it was. After paying for my MPCI I had a whole $3.50/acre left. Not even close to paying for my health insurance that the Canadian farmers get for free.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


Why does the US produce more corn syrup than can possibly be supported by a market? Why do you think small farms operate on a near-disaster basis? Subsidies plus corporate farming have made you worse off, not better.

Subsidies have been around for a very long time and the truth of the matter is they help to provide a stable food supply and a stable price. Get rid of subsidies and people will starve. The market will be oversupplied, prices will drop through the floor, then thousands of farmer will go broke, the crop won't get planted and people will starve.

Why do you think Europe subsidizes it's farmers so well. Because there are people over there who have starved before, and not just during in WW2.

That is completley false. New zeland did away with all of their crop subsidies and now their farmers are actually better off than before.

What crops do they grow there?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


Why does the US produce more corn syrup than can possibly be supported by a market? Why do you think small farms operate on a near-disaster basis? Subsidies plus corporate farming have made you worse off, not better.

Subsidies have been around for a very long time and the truth of the matter is they help to provide a stable food supply and a stable price. Get rid of subsidies and people will starve. The market will be oversupplied, prices will drop through the floor, then thousands of farmer will go broke, the crop won't get planted and people will starve.

Why do you think Europe subsidizes it's farmers so well. Because there are people over there who have starved before, and not just during in WW2.

That is completley false. New zeland did away with all of their crop subsidies and now their farmers are actually better off than before.

What crops do they grow there?

I dont know to be honst but I do the agriculture industry there was heavily subsidized and those subsidiies were turn off very quickly. No one starved and industry switched to different crops that had more value. In the end, the industry was better off.

And our goverment could leanr quite a bit from what new zeland did in cutting wasteful goverment.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not a free-market zealot, but I do think there should be some connection between what a good costs to produce, and what it costs to buy; there's no need for subsidies in agriculture.

There is even less need to subsidze peoples health insurance costs. but the US does it by making it a tax decutible expense. Why should we do one and not the other?

I just went backed and checked my records. The goverment subsidy payment for my farm were $13.50 for every acer of cropland planted. That works out to 27 cents a bushel of wheat. That's not much, but more then I thought it was. After paying for my MPCI I had a whole $3.50/acre left. Not even close to paying for my health insurance that the Canadian farmers get for free.

How is this a canada-US comparison? Both counries, and most of the western world are part of the problem.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


Why does the US produce more corn syrup than can possibly be supported by a market? Why do you think small farms operate on a near-disaster basis? Subsidies plus corporate farming have made you worse off, not better.

Subsidies have been around for a very long time and the truth of the matter is they help to provide a stable food supply and a stable price. Get rid of subsidies and people will starve. The market will be oversupplied, prices will drop through the floor, then thousands of farmer will go broke, the crop won't get planted and people will starve.

Why do you think Europe subsidizes it's farmers so well. Because there are people over there who have starved before, and not just during in WW2.

That is completley false. New zeland did away with all of their crop subsidies and now their farmers are actually better off than before.

What crops do they grow there?

I dont know to be honst but I do the agriculture industry there was heavily subsidized and those subsidiies were turn off very quickly. No one starved and industry switched to different crops that had more value. In the end, the industry was better off.

And our goverment could leanr quite a bit from what new zeland did in cutting wasteful goverment.

They export a lot of dairy products, mutton, fish, and wood it seems. Only 6% arable land. They also have a pretty liberal labor goverment that has also legalized prostituion. 😀 You sure you want to talk about NZ?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not a free-market zealot, but I do think there should be some connection between what a good costs to produce, and what it costs to buy; there's no need for subsidies in agriculture.

There is even less need to subsidze peoples health insurance costs. but the US does it by making it a tax decutible expense. Why should we do one and not the other?

I just went backed and checked my records. The goverment subsidy payment for my farm were $13.50 for every acer of cropland planted. That works out to 27 cents a bushel of wheat. That's not much, but more then I thought it was. After paying for my MPCI I had a whole $3.50/acre left. Not even close to paying for my health insurance that the Canadian farmers get for free.

How is this a canada-US comparison? Both counries, and most of the western world are part of the problem.

Well, you are from Canada and you think that I as a North American should give up my subsidies. I'm just pointing out that in Canada the farmers have health care. I guess in my situation that looks like a subsidy to me. I'm not trying to be an a-hole or knock the 'nucks. I'm just pointing out that not all things are equal when your talking about western democracies.

 

[sandorski]

Food Production is one of those areas of the Economy I've always fealt should be protected or at least a country should have the right to protect. Mostly due to Food being an essential for survival. However, whatever a country does to protect its' own food production, the excess Supply should not be foisted upon the open market to affect World Prices. The Third World suffers greatly because of just that situation, a situation exacerbated by World Bank demands on failed Economies to give up any and all protection of their Agricultural protections. If we truly want an Open Global Market in Agriculture, open it for all starting at the Top, not force those on the Bottom to become totally reliant on the Top and thereby crippling a normal Economic developement that the Top used to get to its' position.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not a free-market zealot, but I do think there should be some connection between what a good costs to produce, and what it costs to buy; there's no need for subsidies in agriculture.

There is even less need to subsidze peoples health insurance costs. but the US does it by making it a tax decutible expense. Why should we do one and not the other?

I just went backed and checked my records. The goverment subsidy payment for my farm were $13.50 for every acer of cropland planted. That works out to 27 cents a bushel of wheat. That's not much, but more then I thought it was. After paying for my MPCI I had a whole $3.50/acre left. Not even close to paying for my health insurance that the Canadian farmers get for free.

How is this a canada-US comparison? Both counries, and most of the western world are part of the problem.

Well, you are from Canada and you think that I as a North American should give up my subsidies. I'm just pointing out that in Canada the farmers have health care. I guess in my situation that looks like a subsidy to me. I'm not trying to be an a-hole or knock the 'nucks. I'm just pointing out that not all things are equal when your talking about western democracies.

If you want socialized health care, then work towards that. Farm subsidies are hardly comparable to health coverage.

More importantly, under a no subsidy system, you would either be better off than you are now, or doing something else, instead of perpetually relying on subsidies for products that *should* be sold in a market, for what they are worth. And guess what? Your labour is part of that cost and becomes incorporated into the cost structure (and market price) under a real market (unless you're highly inefficient compared to other producers).

If you want to see a much worse subsidy-market (but with fewer international implications) check out Canada's east coast fisheries.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

I'm not a free-market zealot, but I do think there should be some connection between what a good costs to produce, and what it costs to buy; there's no need for subsidies in agriculture.

There is even less need to subsidze peoples health insurance costs. but the US does it by making it a tax decutible expense. Why should we do one and not the other?

I just went backed and checked my records. The goverment subsidy payment for my farm were $13.50 for every acer of cropland planted. That works out to 27 cents a bushel of wheat. That's not much, but more then I thought it was. After paying for my MPCI I had a whole $3.50/acre left. Not even close to paying for my health insurance that the Canadian farmers get for free.

How is this a canada-US comparison? Both counries, and most of the western world are part of the problem.

Well, you are from Canada and you think that I as a North American should give up my subsidies. I'm just pointing out that in Canada the farmers have health care. I guess in my situation that looks like a subsidy to me. I'm not trying to be an a-hole or knock the 'nucks. I'm just pointing out that not all things are equal when your talking about western democracies.

If you want socialized health care, then work towards that. Farm subsidies are hardly comparable to health coverage.

More importantly, under a no subsidy system, you would either be better off than you are now, or doing something else, instead of perpetually relying on subsidies for products that *should* be sold in a market, for what they are worth. And guess what? Your labour is part of that cost and becomes incorporated into the cost structure (and market price) under a real market (unless you're highly inefficient compared to other producers).

If you want to see a much worse subsidy-market (but with fewer international implications) check out Canada's east coast fisheries.

Not sure if the East Coast fishery compares well, since there's little fish left.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not sure if the East Coast fishery compares well, since there's little fish left.

And yet we pay people 8+ months a year to NOT work.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not sure if the East Coast fishery compares well, since there's little fish left.

And yet we pay people 8+ months a year to NOT work.

Yup, but it doesn't muck with over supply or price. That said, I suspect the numbers have fallen off over the years, though I can't recall hearing many details on the extent of the program for many years now. Would be interesting if a News source could do a follow up on the situation.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you want socialized health care, then work towards that. Farm subsidies are hardly comparable to health coverage.

More importantly, under a no subsidy system, you would either be better off than you are now, or doing something else, instead of perpetually relying on subsidies for products that *should* be sold in a market, for what they are worth. And guess what? Your labour is part of that cost and becomes incorporated into the cost structure (and market price) under a real market (unless you're highly inefficient compared to other producers).

If you want to see a much worse subsidy-market (but with fewer international implications) check out Canada's east coast fisheries.

I personally would love to have socialized health care, it would beat the heck out of what I have now but in this country everyone is afraid to trust the goverment with their health care, so I don't think there is much of a chance of that happening anytime soon. I still do what I can to convince people it's past time for it though.

I still maintain that without farm subsidies we would suffer from a feast or famine syndrome. That is why the farm programs came along in the first place, to provide a stable supply of food and a stable price for the producer. Yes, the system has been corupted for the benifit of the big farmers and big corporations but in my experience it is still the best way I know of to provide stability to both the producer and the consumer.

If I'm not free to sell my product to anybody in the world then free market is just a bunch of empty talk.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: sandorski
Not sure if the East Coast fishery compares well, since there's little fish left.

And yet we pay people 8+ months a year to NOT work.

Yup, but it doesn't muck with over supply or price. That said, I suspect the numbers have fallen off over the years, though I can't recall hearing many details on the extent of the program for many years now. Would be interesting if a News source could do a follow up on the situation.

But it makes the fishermen worse off than they would be without these 'support' programs, and it costs the rest of us a good deal.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

If you want socialized health care, then work towards that. Farm subsidies are hardly comparable to health coverage.

More importantly, under a no subsidy system, you would either be better off than you are now, or doing something else, instead of perpetually relying on subsidies for products that *should* be sold in a market, for what they are worth. And guess what? Your labour is part of that cost and becomes incorporated into the cost structure (and market price) under a real market (unless you're highly inefficient compared to other producers).

If you want to see a much worse subsidy-market (but with fewer international implications) check out Canada's east coast fisheries.

I personally would love to have socialized health care, it would beat the heck out of what I have now but in this country everyone is afraid to trust the goverment with their health care, so I don't think there is much of a chance of that happening anytime soon. I still do what I can to convince people it's past time for it though.

I still maintain that without farm subsidies we would suffer from a feast or famine syndrome. That is why the farm programs came along in the first place, to provide a stable supply of food and a stable price for the producer. Yes, the system has been corupted for the benifit of the big farmers and big corporations but in my experience it is still the best way I know of to provide stability to both the producer and the consumer.

If I'm not free to sell my product to anybody in the world then free market is just a bunch of empty talk.

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

 

[JTWill]

Well we have alot of sugar substitute products out there. I drink diet pepsi, would our increasing intake of non-sugar products be sending the price up? I know the Army drives the price of products sold to it because of demanding standards. What are our standards for sugar imported here in comparrison to other countries?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, sugar prices are reflective of your 'free market' country refusing to engage in free trade in most agricultral products, either through quotas and tarrifs, or ridiculous subsidies.

So of course your own countries subsidies discust you even more and you are actively seeking to eliminate candian subsidies while at the same time trying to stifen anti-dumping laws (so that when Cananda subsidizes then dumps below cost like they currently do, other nations can punish your government) so that when YOUR country competes, they compete fairly, right? Or are you a hypocrite like your nation is, and are accusing other nations of being?

Program payments have evolved in recent years?

Agriculture policies in developed countries have evolved in recent years, in part, to try to reduce these unintended consequences. Canada moved from commodity-specific support to a whole-farm approach.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/apf/index_e.php?section=info&group=ref&page=bg_con_comp

Antidumping Measures and Competition Policy

The Canadian government does not believe antidumping measures should be used in "free trade" areas. It believes competition law is the appropriate measure for dealing with unfair pricing in free trade areas.

http://www.chicken.ca/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailId=97

For every dollar Canadian farmers earned over last 10 years, federal provincial governments supplied an average $3.76 agricultural subsidies.

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=2131

In 2000, Canada provided $2.32 billion in green box support to farmers, up from $1.75 billion in 1999. Just over three-quarters of this total came from the federal government or though shared federal-provincial programs.

In 2000, agricultural supports under the amber box category totalled just under $2.3 billion. However, because of the de minimis floor provisions in amber box subsidies, only a small portion of this total counts against Canada?s $4.3 billion total AMS limit.

In 2004, direct payments to farmers reached $4.9 billion, up from $2.8 billion in 2000. While these figures are not directly comparable to those submitted to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, they do suggest that Canada?s future reports on total AMS levels will show an increase. To illustrate, crop insurance payments (production insurance) ? listed as a non-product-specific amber box support ? grew from $348 million in 2000 to nearly $1.2 billion two years later. In 2003, eligible payments fell back to $417 million.(7)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0536-e.htm

All of the above estimates don't include the provicial property taxs that are waived, the candian federal crop insurance guarantees, the federal land use payments that are routinely eliminated and many other unreported subsidies both direct and indirect that allow Canada to compete unfairly on the world market.

So in other words, when your country can compete fairly, you might have something to complain about.

And to answer the OP's question, although the sugar subsidy is dated and has gone out of control and should be massively scaled back, it has almost no effect on the cost of food in this country relative to per capita income. The last I saw americans spend less of thier money on food than any nation in the world (less than 5%). Food is the largest strategic product in this world and cannot and should not be imported completely. Subsidies and import duties are essential to maintain domestic production on scales necessary that losses of imports do not substantially impact the survivability of the people of our nation. This is one of the primary reasons that agricultural products have never been discussed as part of the WTO and the primary reason that they should be continued to excluded for essential food stuffs (which sugar is).

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
No, sugar prices are reflective of your 'free market' country refusing to engage in free trade in most agricultral products, either through quotas and tarrifs, or ridiculous subsidies.

So of course your own countries subsidies discust you even more and you are actively seeking to eliminate candian subsidies while at the same time trying to stifen anti-dumping laws (so that when Cananda subsidizes then dumps below cost like they currently do, other nations can punish your government) so that when YOUR country competes, they compete fairly, right? Or are you a hypocrite like your nation is, and are accusing other nations of being?

Program payments have evolved in recent years?

Agriculture policies in developed countries have evolved in recent years, in part, to try to reduce these unintended consequences. Canada moved from commodity-specific support to a whole-farm approach.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/apf/index_e.php?section=info&group=ref&page=bg_con_comp

Antidumping Measures and Competition Policy

The Canadian government does not believe antidumping measures should be used in "free trade" areas. It believes competition law is the appropriate measure for dealing with unfair pricing in free trade areas.

http://www.chicken.ca/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailId=97

For every dollar Canadian farmers earned over last 10 years, federal provincial governments supplied an average $3.76 agricultural subsidies.

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=2131

In 2000, Canada provided $2.32 billion in green box support to farmers, up from $1.75 billion in 1999. Just over three-quarters of this total came from the federal government or though shared federal-provincial programs.

In 2000, agricultural supports under the amber box category totalled just under $2.3 billion. However, because of the de minimis floor provisions in amber box subsidies, only a small portion of this total counts against Canada?s $4.3 billion total AMS limit.

In 2004, direct payments to farmers reached $4.9 billion, up from $2.8 billion in 2000. While these figures are not directly comparable to those submitted to the WTO Committee on Agriculture, they do suggest that Canada?s future reports on total AMS levels will show an increase. To illustrate, crop insurance payments (production insurance) ? listed as a non-product-specific amber box support ? grew from $348 million in 2000 to nearly $1.2 billion two years later. In 2003, eligible payments fell back to $417 million.(7)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0536-e.htm

All of the above estimates don't include the provicial property taxs that are waived, the candian federal crop insurance guarantees, the federal land use payments that are routinely eliminated and many other unreported subsidies both direct and indirect that allow Canada to compete unfairly on the world market.

So in other words, when your country can compete fairly, you might have something to complain about.

And to answer the OP's question, although the sugar subsidy is dated and has gone out of control and should be massively scaled back, it has almost no effect on the cost of food in this country relative to per capita income. The last I saw americans spend less of thier money on food than any nation in the world (less than 5%). Food is the largest strategic product in this world and cannot and should not be imported completely. Subsidies and import duties are essential to maintain domestic production on scales necessary that losses of imports do not substantially impact the survivability of the people of our nation. This is one of the primary reasons that agricultural products have never been discussed as part of the WTO and the primary reason that they should be continued to excluded for essential food stuffs (which sugar is).

Listen fvcktard, try reading the thread.

I'm not comparing Canada to the US, and I'm not claiming that American farm subsidies are hurting me. I'm claiming that western agricultural subsidies, including the ones in Canada are killing people in Africa and Asia.

So before you try to blow me off with another anti-Canada rant, maybe you should read what I said, instead of putting words in my mouth.

Edit - I guess your sig has more than a little truth to it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

I've listened to the free market rhetoric for years (I've been farming since 1974) and I just don't think the goverment can accomplish it and I'm not sure they should. I supported it and would have welcomed it 20 years ago, but now it seems it's just become an excuse to cut support to the farmers. They've had their chance to implement it and instead chose to line the pockets of the big farmers and coporations. My attitude has become one of "If you can't beat them, then join them".

I find it amusing that after all the crap I've seen and been put thru in the name of "eliminating farmer dependace on the goverment" that people are still pursuing the idea and expect me to support it. Talk is cheap, they need to lay out a plan that works and as rahvin pointed out, how is anyone going to be able to work that out when dealing with multiple goverments and their food supplies??

I am curious though, where exactly are we dumping our products that is doing so much harm?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

I've listened to the free market rhetoric for years (I've been farming since 1974) and I just don't think the goverment can accomplish it and I'm not sure they should. I supported it and would have welcomed it 20 years ago, but now it seems it's just become an excuse to cut support to the farmers. They've had their chance to implement it and instead chose to line the pockets of the big farmers and coporations. My attitude has become one of "If you can't beat them, then join them".

I find it amusing that after all the crap I've seen and been put thru in the name of "eliminating farmer dependace on the goverment" that people are still pursuing the idea and expect me to support it. Talk is cheap, they need to lay out a plan that works and as rahvin pointed out, how is anyone going to be able to work that out when dealing with multiple goverments and their food supplies??

I am curious though, where exactly are we dumping our products that is doing so much harm?

Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

Winnar :thumbsup:

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

I've listened to the free market rhetoric for years (I've been farming since 1974) and I just don't think the goverment can accomplish it and I'm not sure they should. I supported it and would have welcomed it 20 years ago, but now it seems it's just become an excuse to cut support to the farmers. They've had their chance to implement it and instead chose to line the pockets of the big farmers and coporations. My attitude has become one of "If you can't beat them, then join them".

I find it amusing that after all the crap I've seen and been put thru in the name of "eliminating farmer dependace on the goverment" that people are still pursuing the idea and expect me to support it. Talk is cheap, they need to lay out a plan that works and as rahvin pointed out, how is anyone going to be able to work that out when dealing with multiple goverments and their food supplies??

I am curious though, where exactly are we dumping our products that is doing so much harm?

Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

Commodities aren't like manufacturing a product where you have total control over how much you produce. How can you manage a supply when you don't even know what your production will be?

The problem is if supply on hand is too large who's going to cut back on production the next year. My Dad laughs that when he was a kid they had the Farmers Union and the farmers would get toghether and bitch about the prices and they would all agree they would cut back on their plantings, then they would go home and plant their farms fence row to fence row.

Now crank other countries into the mix. The US cuts back to maintain a price and Canada/EU/China/AU doesn't. Hmmmmm, guess who benifits from the reduced supply. Those with the product to sell.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

Winnar :thumbsup:

Got some names/examples of these coutries/places? I'm curious to see them.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

I've listened to the free market rhetoric for years (I've been farming since 1974) and I just don't think the goverment can accomplish it and I'm not sure they should. I supported it and would have welcomed it 20 years ago, but now it seems it's just become an excuse to cut support to the farmers. They've had their chance to implement it and instead chose to line the pockets of the big farmers and coporations. My attitude has become one of "If you can't beat them, then join them".

I find it amusing that after all the crap I've seen and been put thru in the name of "eliminating farmer dependace on the goverment" that people are still pursuing the idea and expect me to support it. Talk is cheap, they need to lay out a plan that works and as rahvin pointed out, how is anyone going to be able to work that out when dealing with multiple goverments and their food supplies??

I am curious though, where exactly are we dumping our products that is doing so much harm?

Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

The most screwed up part of Agricultural Subsidies is how they have No benefit to the Consumer. I think you mentioned it earlier in the thread how when the Mad Cow situation hit Canada Farmers got the shaft with practically worthless cows, but Consumers also got the shaft with hardly a difference in Price. Beef should have been cheaper than chicken, McDonalds should have sold 16oz steak on their 99c menu, but the Packers and other middlemen took the opportunity to pocket the difference ripping off both the Farmer and Consumer as far as I'm concerned.

This is what pisses me off about "Free Market" thinking. Supply and Demand is certainly a legitimate concern/factor in determining Price, but there's this thing called "what the Market will bear" which seems to have no consideration of Supply/Demand and is the Achilles Heal of Modern "Free Market" philosophy. I'm sure many will phinagle the 2 ideas together making them seem in synch, but as long as "Market bearing" remains part of the philosophy there will always be strong opposition to Free Markets. "What the Market will bear" is a blank cheque to Price Fixers to try and pry as much money from the Consumer as they possibly can under any circumstance(see the now locked Please--No Price gouging thread for more details), in short it's a license to steal.

Free Marketers need to choose a consistent philosophy that is beneficial to all before all will choose Free Markets as the defacto standard.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The most screwed up part of Agricultural Subsidies is how they have No benefit to the Consumer. I think you mentioned it earlier in the thread how when the Mad Cow situation hit Canada Farmers got the shaft with practically worthless cows, but Consumers also got the shaft with hardly a difference in Price. Beef should have been cheaper than chicken, McDonalds should have sold 16oz steak on their 99c menu, but the Packers and other middlemen took the opportunity to pocket the difference ripping off both the Farmer and Consumer as far as I'm concerned.

This is what pisses me off about "Free Market" thinking. Supply and Demand is certainly a legitimate concern/factor in determining Price, but there's this thing called "what the Market will bear" which seems to have no consideration of Supply/Demand and is the Achilles Heal of Modern "Free Market" philosophy. I'm sure many will phinagle the 2 ideas together making them seem in synch, but as long as "Market bearing" remains part of the philosophy there will always be strong opposition to Free Markets. "What the Market will bear" is a blank cheque to Price Fixers to try and pry as much money from the Consumer as they possibly can under any circumstance(see the now locked Please--No Price gouging thread for more details), in short it's a license to steal.

Free Marketers need to choose a consistent philosophy that is beneficial to all before all will choose Free Markets as the defacto standard.

'What the market will bear' is probably well-described for mad cow as 'sticky prices'. Consumers, grocery stores, etc were slow to simply demand lower prices, so rather than being set by supply, it was easy to keep prices set by comparison to substitutes like chicken and pork.

There are potential problems in 'free markets' when you have a small number or a large but close-knit group of suppliers in an industry. The meat middle-men kept prices high, and made out like bandits while farmers lost their shirts. In some industries 'what the market will bear' is irrelevant; when you have market power in the form of monopoly, cartels, regulations, barriers to entry, etc, you will get uncompetitive pricing.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Under a real free market, you would be free to sell to anyone.

Various income-normalization programs for agriculture, be they insurance-based, or whatever, are one thing, but straight subsidies with dumping onto the world market are killing people.

If you were forced to sell your farm, or made less money without subsidies (the second outcome is highly unliekly, you still wouldn't starve to death.

Drought is a reality of food production, and even the best available irrigation can't really combat that on a massive scale, but subsidies aren't really an answer to drought. One-time aid, crop insurance, and simply adding 'enough savings to live through a bad season or two' to the capital cost of owning a farm (and therefore to the cost of output, i.e. demand price schedules), are direct answers that would not have the same negative effects in foreign markets.

I've listened to the free market rhetoric for years (I've been farming since 1974) and I just don't think the goverment can accomplish it and I'm not sure they should. I supported it and would have welcomed it 20 years ago, but now it seems it's just become an excuse to cut support to the farmers. They've had their chance to implement it and instead chose to line the pockets of the big farmers and coporations. My attitude has become one of "If you can't beat them, then join them".

I find it amusing that after all the crap I've seen and been put thru in the name of "eliminating farmer dependace on the goverment" that people are still pursuing the idea and expect me to support it. Talk is cheap, they need to lay out a plan that works and as rahvin pointed out, how is anyone going to be able to work that out when dealing with multiple goverments and their food supplies??

I am curious though, where exactly are we dumping our products that is doing so much harm?

Anywhere that you dump products for less than the true cost of producing them is a market that has just been closed to non-subsidized farmers in the third world.

The point is you shouldn't need subsidies to make a profit, it should be worked into the price of your product, and it would be if there were no subsidies.

The most screwed up part of Agricultural Subsidies is how they have No benefit to the Consumer. I think you mentioned it earlier in the thread how when the Mad Cow situation hit Canada Farmers got the shaft with practically worthless cows, but Consumers also got the shaft with hardly a difference in Price. Beef should have been cheaper than chicken, McDonalds should have sold 16oz steak on their 99c menu, but the Packers and other middlemen took the opportunity to pocket the difference ripping off both the Farmer and Consumer as far as I'm concerned.

This is what pisses me off about "Free Market" thinking. Supply and Demand is certainly a legitimate concern/factor in determining Price, but there's this thing called "what the Market will bear" which seems to have no consideration of Supply/Demand and is the Achilles Heal of Modern "Free Market" philosophy. I'm sure many will phinagle the 2 ideas together making them seem in synch, but as long as "Market bearing" remains part of the philosophy there will always be strong opposition to Free Markets. "What the Market will bear" is a blank cheque to Price Fixers to try and pry as much money from the Consumer as they possibly can under any circumstance(see the now locked Please--No Price gouging thread for more details), in short it's a license to steal.

Free Marketers need to choose a consistent philosophy that is beneficial to all before all will choose Free Markets as the defacto standard.

Ag subsides create a stable enviroment for the farmers to overproduce. The alternative is to let the big coporations come in and take everything over. Then you won't pay a subsidy, but the will price gouge you for everything they can get. Imagine having only one place to buy food from, the company store so to speak.